ULP v ULS: LPA Revocation Based on Undue Pressure; Mental Capacity Act

ULP, ULQ, and ULR (the appellants), appealed against the District Court's decision to dismiss their application to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) granted by their mother, P, to her son, ULS (the respondent). The appellants argued that P lacked the mental capacity to execute the LPA and that the respondent exerted undue pressure on her. The High Court (Family Division), presided over by Choo Han Teck J, allowed the appeal, revoking the LPA on the grounds of undue pressure, and directed the parties to apply for the appointment of a deputy for P under Section 20 of the Mental Capacity Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal to revoke LPA granted to son due to mother's lack of capacity dismissed at first instance, but appeal allowed due to undue pressure.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ULPAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
ULQAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
ULRAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
ULSRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Suresh s/o DamodaraDamodara Ong LLC
Ong Ziying ClementDamodara Ong LLC
Ning JieDamodara Ong LLC
Lim Dao Yuan KeithDamodara Ong LLC
S.M. Sukhmit SinghDamodara Ong LLC
Ashok Kumar RaiCairnhill Law LLC
Kang Yu Hsien DerekCairnhill Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. P, a 64-year-old retired teacher, executed an LPA on 30 June 2015, appointing her son (the respondent) as the donee.
  2. P's husband and two daughters (the appellants) applied to revoke the LPA, claiming P lacked capacity under the Mental Capacity Act.
  3. The respondent and his father had a complex and acrimonious relationship, as evidenced by emails and text messages.
  4. Dr. Nagaendran, a neurologist, had been treating P for memory loss since 2010 and diagnosed her with Alzheimer's dementia.
  5. Dr. Kua, the LPA certificate issuer, certified that P had the mental capacity to sign the LPA on 30 June 2015.
  6. The respondent brought his mother to see Dr Kua just five days after receiving a message that his father intended to obtain an LPA for P.
  7. The respondent testified that he told P he would have to "leave without her" if she did not tell Dr Kua that she wanted the respondent to care for her.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ULP and others v ULS, District Court Appeal No 52 of 2020, [2021] SGHCF 19
  2. Re BKR, , [2015] 4 SLR 81

6. Timeline

DateEvent
P and the first appellant married.
Respondent noticed P starting to be forgetful.
Respondent brought P to see Dr Nagaendran.
Respondent sent an email to his father.
Respondent sent a text message to the second appellant.
Respondent sent a Facebook message to the third appellant.
P's last appointment with Dr Nagaendran.
Respondent was informed that the first appellant intended to obtain an LPA for P.
P executed a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).
Respondent brought P to see Dr Joshua Kua.
LPA was registered with the Office of the Public Guardian.
Respondent forcibly removed P from his home.
First appellant harassed P by incessantly calling her.
First appellant commenced divorce proceedings against P.
Respondent allowed the second and third appellants to bring P out for Deepavali.
Respondent filed FC/SUM 3669/2015 to be appointed as P’s litigation representative.
First appellant discontinued the divorce proceedings.
Appellants filed FC/OSM 95/2017 to challenge the validity of the LPA.
Hearing before the High Court.
High Court granted leave to the respondent to file a subpoena to produce Dr Kua’s clinical notes.
High Court gave directions for the filing of submissions.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Undue Pressure
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent had exerted undue pressure on P to execute the LPA and revoked the LPA.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Mental Capacity
    • Outcome: The court found that P had mental capacity on 30 June 2015 to execute the LPA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 4 SLR 81

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Revocation of Lasting Power of Attorney

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Litigation
  • Elder Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re BKRCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 81SingaporeCited for the test for capacity, which has a clinical and functional component.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 17(2)(a) MCASingapore
Paragraph 17(a) of the First Schedule to the MCASingapore
Section 3(2) of the MCASingapore
Section 4(1) of the MCASingapore
Section 41(6) of the MCASingapore
Section 5(1) of the MCASingapore
Section 17(3)(a), 17(4)(b) MCASingapore
Paragraph 17(c) of the First Schedule to the MCASingapore
Section 20 of the MCASingapore
Section 24(1)(b)(ii) of the MCASingapore
Section 17(3)(b)(ii), Section 17(4)(b) of the MCASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Lasting Power of Attorney
  • Mental Capacity Act
  • Undue Pressure
  • Mental Capacity
  • Dementia
  • Certificate Issuer
  • Donee
  • Alzheimer’s Disease
  • Clinical Notes
  • Best Interests

15.2 Keywords

  • Lasting Power of Attorney
  • Mental Capacity Act
  • Undue Influence
  • Family Dispute
  • Elderly Care

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Mental Capacity Law95
Lasting Power of Attorney95
Family Law90
Undue Influence80
Wills and Probate70
Trust Law40

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Mental Capacity
  • Elder Law
  • Civil Procedure