WHR v WHT: Will and Codicil Validity Dispute in Estate of LLT

WHR and WHS, as executors of the will of LLT, sued WHT and others to prove the validity of LLT's will and codicil. The General Division of the High Court (Family Division) heard the case, with Choo Han Teck J presiding. The court declared the will dated 25 March 1999 and the codicil dated 6 August 2008 valid after the opposing defendants disputed the testamentary capacity of LLT. The court found that the plaintiffs had discharged their burden to prove the will and codicil in solemn form.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Will and Codicil declared valid.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over the validity of a will and codicil in the estate of LLT. The court declared both the will and codicil valid after examining testamentary capacity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
WHRPlaintiffIndividualWill and Codicil declared validWon
WHSPlaintiffIndividualWill and Codicil declared validWon
WHTDefendantIndividualWill and Codicil declared validLost
WHUDefendantIndividualWill and Codicil declared validLost
WHVDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WHWDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WHXDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WHYDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WHZDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WIADefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WIBDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WICDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WIDDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WIFDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WIHDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WIGDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
WIZDefendantIndividualWill and Codicil declared validLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Teng MuanUniLegal LLC
Loh Li QinUniLegal LLC
Goh Kok YeowDe Souza Lim & Goh LLP
William OngAllen & Gledhill LLP
Tan XeauweiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Racheal Wong Shu YiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Alfred LiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Loh Weijie LeonardSelvam LLC
Sarbjit Singh ChopraSelvam LLC
Poon Pui YeeHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Cherrilynn ChiaHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Hee Theng FongHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. LLT emigrated to Singapore in 1935 and built a business selling luxury watches.
  2. LLT died on 13 March 2009, leaving behind a large estate.
  3. A Will dated 25 March 1999 and a Codicil dated 6 August 2008 were discovered after LLT's death.
  4. The Codicil altered the distribution of LLT's properties and pecuniary legacies.
  5. The 1st and 2nd Defendants disputed the validity of the Will and Codicil.
  6. The 1st Plaintiff was involved in the preparation of the Codicil and benefitted from it.
  7. LLT's nurse testified that LLT was mentally alert.

5. Formal Citations

  1. WHR and another v WHT and others, Suit No 4 of 2019, [2023] SGHCF 32

6. Timeline

DateEvent
LLT was born in China.
LLT emigrated to Singapore.
LLT executed the Will.
LLT executed the Codicil.
LLT died.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed caveats against the grant of probate in LLT’s estate.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants asked their siblings to state their intention to apply for a grant of letters of administration.
The 1st Plaintiff, and the 3rd to 5th Defendants informed the 1st and 2nd Defendants that the 1st Plaintiff had found the key to a safe belonging to LLT.
The Will and Codicil was read for the first time.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants issued a Citation for the Will and Codicil to be propounded.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants applied for a grant of ad colligenda bona.
Plaintiffs commenced action to prove the Will and Codicil.
Trial began.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Testamentary Capacity
    • Outcome: The court found that LLT possessed the requisite mental capacity to execute both the Will and the Codicil.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Mental capacity of testator
      • Suspicious circumstances surrounding will execution
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 4 SLR 373
  2. Validity of Codicil
    • Outcome: The court declared the codicil valid, finding no evidence of undue influence or conflict of interest that would vitiate it.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Undue influence
      • Conflict of interest

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of validity of Will
  2. Declaration of validity of Codicil
  3. Grant of Probate

9. Cause of Actions

  • Proof of Will
  • Proof of Codicil

10. Practice Areas

  • Probate
  • Estate Planning

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)Court of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 373SingaporeCited as evidence that the testamentary instrument was read back to the testator is affirmative evidence of the testator’s knowledge and approval.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
r 855 of the Family Justice Rules 2014

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Will
  • Codicil
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Pecuniary legatee
  • Residuary legatee
  • Suspicious circumstances
  • Undue influence

15.2 Keywords

  • Will
  • Codicil
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Estate
  • Probate
  • Family Justice Courts
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Codicils95
Testamentary Capacity90
Wills80
Succession Law75
Wills and Probate70
Estate Administration60

16. Subjects

  • Wills and Probate
  • Family Law
  • Estate Administration