XBO v XBP: Testamentary Capacity & Validity of 2012 Will Dispute

In XBO v XBP, the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a dispute over the validity of two wills made by the late Mr. [A]. The plaintiff, XBO, sought a pronouncement that the 2012 Will, which bequeathed the testator's estate to him, was the last true will. The defendant, XBP, challenged the 2012 Will, claiming the testator lacked testamentary capacity due to dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease, and counterclaimed for a pronouncement that the 2011 Will, which bequeathed the property to her, was the last true will. Tan Siong Thye SJ found that the testator had testamentary capacity when making the 2012 Will and granted the plaintiff's suit, dismissing the defendant's counterclaim. The court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court rules on testamentary capacity in a will dispute between children of the testator, upholding the 2012 will.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
XBOPlaintiff, Defendant in counterclaimIndividualClaim AllowedWon
XBPDefendant, Plaintiff in counterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sam Hui Min LisaLisa Sam & Company
Sudhershen HariramTan Rajah & Cheah
Tan Shaofeng DonnyTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff and the defendant are children of the testator, Mr. [A].
  2. In 2011, the testator made a will bequeathing the Property to the defendant.
  3. In 2012, the testator made a will giving his estate to the plaintiff.
  4. The defendant challenged the validity of the 2012 Will, alleging the testator lacked testamentary capacity.
  5. The testator passed away on 13 March 2019.
  6. The testator’s estate includes a single-story bungalow at [address redacted].

5. Formal Citations

  1. XBO v XBP, Suit No 7 of 2019, [2024] SGHCF 36

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Testator executed the 2011 Will
Testator dictated a draft will to the plaintiff
Defendant claims testator was diagnosed with dementia and/or Alzheimer’s disease
Testator underwent a CT brain scan
Defendant accompanied the testator to the dentist
Family held a surprise birthday party for the testator
Testator dictated a second draft of the 2012 Will to the plaintiff
Testator was admitted to Changi General Hospital
Testator was admitted to Changi General Hospital
Testator executed the 2012 Will
Testator was admitted to Changi General Hospital
Testator passed away
Plaintiff filed Statement of Claim
Defendant provided Further and Better Particulars
Defendant filed Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1)
Defendant filed Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 2)
Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief of [F] was dated
Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief of [G] was dated
Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief of [XBO] was dated
Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief of [XBP] was dated
Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief of [D] was dated
Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief of [H] was dated
Agreed Bundle of Documents was dated
Agreed Statement of Facts was dated
Notes of Evidence
Notes of Evidence
Notes of Evidence
Notes of Evidence
Notes of Evidence
Notes of Evidence
Notes of Evidence
Trial began
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions dated
Defendant’s Closing Submissions dated
Plaintiff’s Reply Submissions dated
Defendant’s Reply Submissions dated
Judgment reserved
Judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Testamentary Capacity
    • Outcome: The court found that the testator had the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed the 2012 Will.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2023] SGHCF 32
      • [2010] 4 SLR 373
      • [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631
      • [1999] VSC 228
      • [2006] 1 FLR 693

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Pronouncement that the 2012 Will is the last true will
  2. Probate of the 2012 Will to the plaintiff
  3. Letters of administration with will annexed to the defendant

9. Cause of Actions

  • Pronouncement in solemn form of law for the 2012 Will
  • Counterclaim for pronouncement in solemn form of law for the 2011 Will

10. Practice Areas

  • Probate Litigation
  • Estate Planning

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
WHR and another v WHT and othersGeneral Division of the High Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 32SingaporeCited for the proposition that a testator may suffer from occasional lapses of memory without losing the requisite testamentary capacity.
How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appealsCourt of AppealNo[2023] 2 SLR 235SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court ought to permit an unpleaded point to be raised and determined if there is no irreparable prejudice occasioned to the other side that cannot be compensated in costs or where it would be clearly unjust for the court not to do so.
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)High CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 373SingaporeCited for the essential requisites of testamentary capacity.
George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob GeorgeHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 631SingaporeCited for the essential requisites of testamentary capacity.
Norris v TuppenVictorian Supreme CourtYes[1999] VSC 228AustraliaCited with approval for the holding that a testator may labour under a medical condition, such as dementia, at the time of the execution of the will, whilst still retaining his or her testamentary capacity to execute it.
Cattermole v PriskEnglish High Court Chancery DivisionYes[2006] 1 FLR 693England and WalesCited with approval for the holding that a testator may labour under a medical condition, such as dementia, at the time of the execution of the will, whilst still retaining his or her testamentary capacity to execute it.
Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 592SingaporeCited for the principle of external consistency in testimonies.
Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 45SingaporeCited for the principle of external consistency in testimonies.
Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeCited for the principle that counsel must put allegations to a witness to allow them to respond.
Public Prosecutor v Miya ManikHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 164SingaporeCited for the principle that counsel must put allegations to a witness to allow them to respond.
Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 73SingaporeCited for the principle that counsel must put allegations to a witness to allow them to respond.
Abdul Rashid bin Mohamed and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 656SingaporeCited for the principle that a court is not required to reject a witness’s evidence in toto merely because an aspect of their evidence is disbelieved.
Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 308SingaporeCited for the principle that a court is not required to reject a witness’s evidence in toto merely because an aspect of their evidence is disbelieved.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 619SingaporeCited for the principle that a court is not required to reject a witness’s evidence in toto merely because an aspect of their evidence is disbelieved.
Public Prosecutor v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2)Federal CourtYes[1977] 1 MLJ 15MalaysiaCited for the principle that a court is not required to reject a witness’s evidence in toto merely because an aspect of their evidence is disbelieved.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings.
Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hong Kong) LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 524SingaporeCited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422SingaporeCited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings.
Liberty Sky Investments Ltd v Aesthetic Medical Partners Pte Ltd and other appeals and another matterHigh CourtYes[2020] 1 SLR 606SingaporeCited for the principle that there would clearly be irreparable prejudice because the plaintiff was deprived of fair warning of the defendant’s case before the trial began.
Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 304SingaporeCited for the principle that there would clearly be irreparable prejudice because the plaintiff was deprived of fair warning of the defendant’s case before the trial began.
WWI v WWJFamily CourtYes[2024] SGFC 22SingaporeCited for the principle that costs in probate actions are often based on the justification or reasonableness of bringing such actions.
In the Matter of the Estate of Eusoff Mohamed Salleh Angullia, Deceased; Ahmad Mohamed Salleh Angullia & 2 Ors v Rahimaboo Binte Mohamed Salleh Angullia & AnorHigh CourtYes[1939] 8 MLJ 100MalaysiaCited for the principle that even where a party unsuccessfully challenges the will or codicil, but with a reasonable case for inquiry, the court may, in its discretion, order costs to be awarded out of the estate to reimburse the unsuccessful opponent who has to pay the winning party.
Mitchell and Mitchell v Gard and KingwellCourt of ProbateYes(1863) 164 ER 1280England and WalesCited for the principle that if the cause of litigation takes its origin in the fault of the testator or those interested in the residue, the costs may properly be paid out of the estate.
Yeo Henry (executor and trustee of the estate of Ng Lay Hua, deceased) v Yeo Charles and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 220SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no legal fetter to the general principle of testamentary freedom by which a person may leave his or her assets as he or she sees fit.
Leow Li Yoon v Liu Jiu ChangHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 595SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no legal fetter to the general principle of testamentary freedom by which a person may leave his or her assets as he or she sees fit.
Vegetarian Society and another v ScottHigh CourtYes[2013] EWHC 4097 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the principle that there is no legal fetter to the general principle of testamentary freedom by which a person may leave his or her assets as he or she sees fit.
Gill v Woodall and othersCourt of AppealYes[2011] Ch 380England and WalesCited for the principle that there is no legal fetter to the general principle of testamentary freedom by which a person may leave his or her assets as he or she sees fit.

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

  • Testamentary capacity
  • 2011 Will
  • 2012 Will
  • Sole beneficiary
  • Last true will
  • Dementia
  • Alzheimer's disease
  • Execution of will
  • Probate
  • Letters of administration

15.2 Keywords

  • Will
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Probate
  • Singapore
  • Family Justice Courts
  • Estate
  • Alzheimer's
  • Dementia

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Testamentary Capacity98
Wills and Probate95
Estate Administration70
Trusts and Estates60

16. Subjects

  • Wills
  • Probate
  • Family Law
  • Estate Litigation