WKK v WKL: Dispute over Validity of Wills and Estate Distribution

In WKK v WKL, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of Singapore, the court addressed a dispute over the validity of two wills purportedly executed by the late SCH. The defendant-in-counterclaim, WKK, claimed a will from 2019 was valid, while the plaintiff-in-counterclaim, WKL, asserted the validity of a 2016 will. The court, Choo Han Teck J presiding, found the 2016 will to be valid and granted judgment for the plaintiff-in-counterclaim, ordering estate distribution according to its terms.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Defendant-in-Counterclaim

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over the validity of two wills. The court found the 2016 will valid, ordering estate distribution as per that will.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
WKKPlaintiff, Defendant-in-CounterclaimIndividualClaim struck outDismissed
WKLDefendant, Plaintiff-in-CounterclaimIndividualCounterclaim AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nah Wei Jin Danny ErwinH C Law Practice
Lee Chung Yen StevenHilborne Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff and defendant are brothers, with a sister not party to the action.
  2. The dispute concerns the validity of two wills purportedly executed by SCH, who died in May 2020.
  3. The plaintiff claimed SCH executed a will on 28 September 2019, making him the sole beneficiary of the MT Flat and a motor vehicle.
  4. The defendant claimed the only valid will was executed on 29 August 2016, dividing assets equally among the three children.
  5. SCH suffered from Parkinson’s disease since 2008, with his physical condition deteriorating over the years.
  6. SCH’s estate mainly consisted of the MT Flat and businesses.
  7. The plaintiff helped in the fruit shop business, while the defendant and sister were not involved.

5. Formal Citations

  1. WKKvWKL, Suit No 3 of 2021, [2023] SGHCF 48

6. Timeline

DateEvent
SCH diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
SCH executed a will.
Defendant claimed Plaintiff had difficulties hearing and understanding SCH.
Plaintiff claimed SCH executed a will.
Defendant alleged SCH transferred his business to the plaintiff.
SCH died.
Suit filed.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Will
    • Outcome: The court found the will of 29 August 2016 to be valid and pronounced against the will of 28 September 2019.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Will Validity
  2. Order for Estate Distribution

9. Cause of Actions

  • Determination of Will Validity

10. Practice Areas

  • Probate
  • Family Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Will
  • Estate
  • Executor
  • Trustee
  • Beneficiary
  • Parkinson’s disease
  • Counterclaim

15.2 Keywords

  • Will
  • Estate
  • Probate
  • Family Dispute
  • Singapore
  • Succession

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Wills and Probate95
Succession Law90
Testamentary Capacity70
Wills60

16. Subjects

  • Wills and Estates
  • Family Law