fc_judgments_version: 75
This data as json
| _id | _item | _version | _commit | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _item_full_hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | 64 | 1 | 1789 | [
"Probate and Administration Act 1934 \u2013 Revocation of Grant \u2013 Testamentary Capacity \u2013 Knowledge and Approval of Will \u2013 Undue Influence"
] |
2024-08-12 | Family Court | FC/S 9/2017 | XAT v XAU and another | [2024] SGFC 59 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F31954-SSP.xml | [
"Plaintiff in Person",
"Mr Daniel Atticus Xu (Messrs Exodus Law Corporation) for the Defendants."
] |
2024-08-16T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Cassandra Cheong | <root><head><title>XAT v XAU and another</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XAT <em>v</em> XAU and another </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31954-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 59</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">FC/S 9/2017</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">12 August 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Cassandra Cheong </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Plaintiff in Person; Mr Daniel Atticus Xu (Messrs Exodus Law Corporation) for the Defendants. </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> XAT — XAU — XAV </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Probate and Administration Act 1934</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Revocation of Grant</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Testamentary Capacity</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Knowledge and Approval of Will</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Undue Influence</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">12 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Cassandra Cheong:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 This case involves a dispute between the wife ("the Plaintiff") of a deceased man and his nephew (“the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant) and half-sister ("the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant") over a Will executed by the deceased on 17 August 2015 ("the Will").</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Under the Will<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span>, the deceased appointed the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as executor and trustee of his Will and named the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant as sole beneficiary of his estate. The Will further contained an express provision as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">" I DO NOT wish to give any of my property or personal properties to my wife, Mdm [Plaintiff] (Passport No. xxx) as I merely 'marry' her to help her extend her stay as an accompanying person to her child who is studying in Singapore. We are unable to consummate our marriage."</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The deceased passed away on 2 September 2015 and grant of probate for his estate was subsequently issued to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on 26 January 2016.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 On 30 June 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the present probate action to revoke the grant issued to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on the basis that the Will is invalid due to the following<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span>:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_a"></a>(a) the deceased was not of sound mind and memory and was unable to understand the nature of signing and executing the Will, or</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_b"></a>(b) in the alternative, that the signature of the Deceased was a forgery, or</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_c"></a>(c) in the alternative, that the Will was prepared and executed under suspicious circumstances or under the undue influence of “someone or some people”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The Plaintiff further sought for letters of administration for the estate of the deceased to be granted to her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s claim on the basis that they were bare allegations and asserted that the deceased had the requisite testamentary capacity and had executed the Will of his own accord.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 After considering the evidence and the submissions made by the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as I found that her allegations were bare allegations, unsubstantiated by the evidence and granted order in terms of the Defendants’ counterclaim. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff now appeals against the whole of my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background Facts</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The Plaintiff is a Chinese national. She came to Singapore to accompany her daughter who was studying here. She first knew the Deceased in 2011 as his tenant and remained his tenant, until their marriage. The deceased was a bachelor who lived in a 3-room flat at Whampoa Drive, which he owned in his sole name. The flat had two bedrooms and a utility room. As he was a retiree, the deceased relied solely on the rental from the rooms of the flat for his income. Apart from his siblings, he did not have any other immediate family members as his parents were deceased.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Plaintiff and the deceased subsequently married on 16 October 2013. They had a simple solemnization ceremony conducted in the living room of the deceased’s flat. The solemnization was attended only by the Plaintiff’s friend and the friend’s husband who acted as witnesses for the marriage. The deceased did not invite any of his siblings, other relatives or friends to the wedding. When asked by the Plaintiff why the deceased did not invite his siblings, the deceased simply replied that he and the Plaintiff would not have been able to proceed with the marriage if he did.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> After the marriage, the deceased continued to reside with the Plaintiff at the said flat at Whampoa Drive until about a month before his demise.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 Sometime, on xx October 2014, the Plaintiff and the deceased were interviewed by reporters from a local Chinese newspaper (“the Chinese newspaper”) on their marriage. Soon after, in October 2014, a newspaper article was published in the Chinese newspaper <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> on the marriage between the Plaintiff and the deceased being a sham marriage, which distressed the Plaintiff greatly. According to the newspaper article, after the marriage, the deceased and the Plaintiff slept separately without consummation of the marriage. It further stated that, as the Plaintiff ceased to pay rent to the deceased after the marriage, the deceased sought to divorce the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff refused. When interviewed, the Plaintiff denied that the deceased ever raised the issue of divorce and questioned why she needed to pay rent when they were already married.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 After the publication of the newspaper article, both the Plaintiff and the deceased continued to reside at the flat but the Plaintiff started paying the deceased $400 per month in November and December 2014. In return, the deceased issued the Plaintiff signed receipts<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> certifying that he had received payment of $400 from the Plaintiff as “payment for the water and electricity bill, taxes and other miscellaneous charges”. The receipt further stated that “[the Plaintiff] is responsible for the daily living activities of [the deceased], including laundry, cooking, housekeeping, hygiene and accompanying him to his medical examination and other matters”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 On 18 December 2014, the deceased signed a letter authorizing<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> the Plaintiff to put up one of the rooms in the flat for rent. The document further stated that the deceased and the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff shall:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a"></a>(a) be responsible for all matters relating to the room rental,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b"></a>(b) bear all expenses related to the repairs, renovations, interior decorations and additional furniture and equipment in the rental room,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_c"></a>(c) pay the deceased $600 every month with effect from the date the room was rented out,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_d"></a>(d) be responsible for the water and electricity bill and taxes every month and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_e"></a>(e) continue to be responsible for his daily living activities including laundry, cooking, housekeeping, hygiene, accompanying him to his medical examination and other matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 In line with this agreement, the room was subsequently rented out from January 2015 onwards at $1,800 per month. The deceased then issued signed receipts<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> to the Plaintiff from January to July 2015 certifying that he had received payment of $600 from her as “payment for this month’s room rental”. The receipt further stated that “[the Plaintiff] is responsible for the repairs of the room, the water and electricity bill, taxes and purchase of various utensils. [The Plaintiff] is also responsible for the daily living activities of [the deceased], including laundry, cooking, housekeeping, hygiene and accompanying him to his medical examination and other matters”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 Sometime in July 2015, the deceased experienced breathlessness. The Plaintiff sent the deceased to Tan Tock Seng Hospital where he was admitted until 6 August 2015. Upon his discharge from hospital, the deceased was transferred to Ren Ci Community Hospital. However, his condition worsened and he was re-admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital. It was during this period of time that the deceased executed the Will on 17 August 2015 without the Plaintiff’s knowledge. He subsequently passed away on 2 September 2015. It is undisputed that prior to his death, the deceased suffered from diabetes, hypertension and, from about two months prior to his death, ischaemic heart disease.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Circumstances leading up to the execution of the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Sometime after the deceased was admitted into Tan Tock Seng Hospital, the deceased contacted a family friend, L to visit him at the hospital. L knew the deceased for more than forty-five years<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> and the deceased would approach L for help from time to time with any issues that the deceased encountered.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 At the hospital, the deceased stated to L that his marriage to the Plaintiff was a sham. He realised that the Plaintiff did not care for him and he did not wish to leave his flat to her. Being a senior director representing Great Eastern Life, with more than thirty years of experience in the insurance industry, L understood more about the execution of Wills than the average lay person.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> At the deceased’s instructions, L, with the assistance of his senior manager at the insurance office, prepared a Will in accordance with the deceased’s wishes i.e. for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to be appointed as executor and the deceased’s flat to be left to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 According to L, although the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant was the deceased’s half-sister, the deceased cared more for and treated her better than his other full-blooded sisters.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> This was because the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant had gone through a hard life and was financially poorer than the rest of the deceased and his siblings.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> As such, the deceased wanted to leave her with the most valuable asset he had i.e. his flat.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 At the deceased’s request, L contacted the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to inform him that the deceased had appointed him as the executor of the Will and requested for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to find two persons to witness the execution of the Will and an interpreter to explain the Will to the deceased.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant then contacted his sister-in-law, C, who was well-versed in English and mandarin and requested for her to interpret the Will to the deceased.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span> He also contacted his mother, who was the deceased’s sister, to assist in the finding of two witnesses for the Will. It is undisputed that the two witnesses found was J ( the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s brother) and I (J’s friend).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 On 17 August 2015, L brought the Will to the hospital for the deceased’s execution. Prior to the execution of the Will, C explained the contents of the Will in mandarin to the deceased who confirmed that he understood the contents of the Will before executing it in the presence of the witnesses. The witnesses then signed the Will in the presence of the deceased. After the Will was executed by the deceased and the witnesses, L kept the Will on the deceased’s behalf.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 It is undisputed that the Plaintiff did not know of the existence of the Will until after the death of the deceased.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 Much of the dispute between parties pertains to the relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 According to the Plaintiff, both she and the deceased shared a regular marriage life where parties cared for each other. The deceased would buy the Plaintiff food that she liked to eat and also demonstrate care and concern for her daughter.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span> He even volunteered to be the sponsor for her daughter’s application for permanent residency.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span> The deceased also introduced the Plaintiff to his neighbours as his wife. As the deceased was a retiree with little income, both of them would share the daily living costs after the marriage.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 The Plaintiff’s claim of a regular marriage life is disputed by the Defendants. According to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, he started visiting the deceased at the deceased’s flat after he learnt about the deceased’s marriage as he was concerned for his uncle’s well-being.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span> During one of his visits in 2014, the deceased informed the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant that he regretted marrying the Plaintiff as she had ceased to pay rental to him after becoming his wife. She also failed to take care of him despite her promise to. As a result, the deceased did not have any income or sufficient monies for his own needs.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 This is corroborated by the evidence of L, a long-time family friend of the deceased. Sometime in 2014, the deceased had informed L that his marriage with the Plaintiff was a sham marriage.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span> Although the Plaintiff had assured him she would continue to pay rent after the marriage, she ceased paying rental leaving the deceased with no income. As such, the deceased approached L for assistance.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span> The deceased wanted to let others know of his sham marriage to the Plaintiff. As such, L made arrangements for reporters from the Chinese newspaper to interview the Plaintiff and the deceased at their home (“the newspaper article incident”).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span> The details of the newspaper article arising from the interview is set out in paragraph 10 above.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 L’s version of events is disputed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff denies that the deceased had any involvement in or prior knowledge of the reporters’ visit to their home. The Plaintiff claims in her affidavit<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span> that:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_25-p2_a"></a>(a) when the reporters first visited the deceased’s flat, they were brought to the home by the deceased’s sister. As such, the Plaintiff was under the impression that the reporters were also relatives of the deceased. It was only later during the visit that the Plaintiff discovered that they were reporters from the Chinese newspaper.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_25-p2_b"></a>(b) Upon discovering that they were reporters, the Plaintiff acceded to the interview. However, just before the reporters left the deceased’s flat, they told the Plaintiff if she agreed to give up her inheritance of the deceased’s flat, they would not publish the interview in the newspaper.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_25-p2_c"></a>(c) The next day, the deceased informed her that the reporters were patrons of his sister’s and nephew’s food stall and the reporters had gone to the deceased’s flat at their request. He also stated that they had nothing to fear if they did not do anything wrong.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 During the trial, the Plaintiff gave a slightly different version of events. The Plaintiff alleged that:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_a"></a>(a) The reporters were brought to the flat by the deceased and his sister.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_26" id="Ftn_26_1"><sup>[note: 26]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_b"></a>(b) The Plaintiff was unaware throughout the entire visit that they were reporters from the Chinese newspaper.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_27" id="Ftn_27_1"><sup>[note: 27]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_c"></a>(c) While she was showing the reporters around the flat, out of the blue, they requested for her to write a note stating that she did not want the house.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_28" id="Ftn_28_1"><sup>[note: 28]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_d"></a>(d) The next day after the article was published, the Plaintiff asked the deceased why he had brought reporters to the flat. The deceased told her that they both had nothing to fear if they did not do anything wrong.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_29" id="Ftn_29_1"><sup>[note: 29]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Events after the deceased’s demise</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 According to the Plaintiff, on 2 September 2015, she received several calls from the hospital informing her of the deceased's poor health condition. She immediately made her way to the hospital but before she could arrive, the deceased had already passed on.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 Upon arrival at the hospital, the Plaintiff noted that the deceased’s personal belongings were missing, such as his ATM card, identification card, cash and wedding ring. She was also informed by a nurse at the hospital that the deceased's relatives had been visiting him every night since 14 August 2015 and assumed that the deceased’s relatives had taken the said items.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_30" id="Ftn_30_1"><sup>[note: 30]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 The Plaintiff initially claimed that the Will was only made known to her on 16 February 2016.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_31" id="Ftn_31_1"><sup>[note: 31]</sup></a></span> However, at the trial, the Plaintiff conceded that she first learnt of the deceased's Will on 4 September 2015, just a few days after his death.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_32" id="Ftn_32_1"><sup>[note: 32]</sup></a></span> She received a call from L requesting that they meet at Tan Tock Seng mortuary to discuss matters concerning the deceased's funeral. At the time, the Plaintiff had no knowledge of who L was.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 At the said meeting, L informed the Plaintiff of the existence of the Will but no document was produced. The deceased's siblings also threatened to report her to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority ("ICA") and to send her back to China.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_33" id="Ftn_33_1"><sup>[note: 33]</sup></a></span> It was subsequently agreed at the meeting that the Plaintiff would be responsible for the funeral arrangements of the deceased, which included cremation of the deceased’s body. The Plaintiff made the relevant arrangements and paid for the cremation of the deceased.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 Thereafter, the Plaintiff closed the deceased's bank account and withdrew the remaining sum of $3,222.45 from the account as cash, which she retained.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_34" id="Ftn_34_1"><sup>[note: 34]</sup></a></span> The Plaintiff also applied to claim the CPF monies of the deceased. On 3 December 2015, the Plaintiff received a cheque for the sum of $39,989.76, being monies from the deceased's CPF account.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_35" id="Ftn_35_1"><sup>[note: 35]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 On 26 January 2016, the grant of probate was issued to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 On 16 February 2016, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and another of the deceased’s nephews showed up at the deceased's flat and informed the Plaintiff to vacate the said flat by 5 March 2016 as the Court has ordered the flat to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant. At the time, the Plaintiff did not know who the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant was or how she was related to the deceased. The Plaintiff asked for proof of the court order but they were unable to produce any documents in support of their claim. They then told the Plaintiff that they would return and show it to her another day.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 A few days later, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant returned to the flat and showed the Plaintiff what appeared to be only the first page of the Will. This is disputed by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant who asserts that he had brought the complete Will with him at the time and given a copy to the Plaintiff.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_36" id="Ftn_36_1"><sup>[note: 36]</sup></a></span> The Plaintiff informed the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant that as she was illiterate in English, she would need to seek legal advice on the purported Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 The Plaintiff subsequently engaged solicitors to request for a copy of the Will from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant but to no avail. She also requested through her solicitors for an extension of time until 1<sup>st</sup> of July 2016 to move out of the deceased’s flat.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_37" id="Ftn_37_1"><sup>[note: 37]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 The Plaintiff subsequently obtained a certified true copy of the Will and the Grant of Probate from the Family Justice Courts. According to the Plaintiff, this was the first time that she had sight of the full Will. She became suspicious of the Will as she found paragraph 6 of the Will to be untrue.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_38" id="Ftn_38_1"><sup>[note: 38]</sup></a></span> She also denied the signature on the Will to be the deceased’s.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 On 30 June 2017, the Plaintiff commenced this action to dispute the validity of the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Applicable Legal Principles</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 The formal validity of a Will is governed by Section 5(2) of the Wills Act 1838, as set out below:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>“Rules as to formal validity</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">5.—(2) A will shall be treated as properly executed if its execution conformed to the internal law in force —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) in the territory where it was executed;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) in the territory where the testator was domiciled at the time —</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-3">(i) when the will was executed;</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-3">(ii) or of his death;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) in the territory where the testator habitually resided at either of the times referred to in paragraph (b); or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) in the state of which the testator was a national at either of the times referred to in paragraph (b)…”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 Where the Will was executed in Singapore, Section 6 of the Wills Act 1838 applies:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Mode of Execution</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">6.—(1) No will shall be valid unless it is <em>in writing and executed in the manner mentioned in subsection (2).</em></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(2) Every will shall be <em>signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator</em>, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction, and the signature shall be made or acknowledged by the testator as the signature to his will or codicil <em>in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, and those witnesses shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator</em>, but no form of attestation shall be necessary.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 As such, for a Will to be validly executed, it has to be signed at the foot or the end by the testator, in the presence of at least two witnesses present at the same time and subscribed by those witnesses in the presence of the testator.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Testamentary Capacity</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 It is established law that the propounder of a Will bears the legal burden of proving that the deceased had testamentary capacity to execute a Will.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_39" id="Ftn_39_1"><sup>[note: 39]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 Testamentary capacity will generally be presumed, and will be <em>prima facie</em> established, when the Will was duly executed in ordinary circumstances i.e. where the testator was not known to be suffering from any kind of mental disability. One indication of testamentary capacity is the rationality of the Will, having regard to its terms and the identities of the beneficiaries. If the Will is rational on its face, the testator is presumed to have had testamentary capacity.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_40" id="Ftn_40_1"><sup>[note: 40]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 Once the presumption of testamentary capacity operates, the party challenging the Will may rebut this presumption by adducing evidence to the contrary, such as evidence that the testator was suffering from a medical illness that was serious enough for the court to find that the testator lacked testamentary capacity. The burden of proving the unsoundness of mind lies with the person alleging it.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_41" id="Ftn_41_1"><sup>[note: 41]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Knowledge and Approval of Contents</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 Where testamentary capacity is established, a rebuttal presumption arises that the testator knew and approved the contents of the Will and the evidential burden shifts in the ordinary circumstances to the opponent of the Will to rebut this presumption.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 The presumption will not operate where there were circumstances attending or relating to the preparation and execution of the Will which would raise a well-grounded suspicion that the Will did not express the mind of the testator. Circumstances which have nothing to do with the preparation and execution of the Will are to be disregarded. Only circumstances that attend to or relate to the preparation and execution of the Will are relevant. Conduct after the preparation and execution of the Will may be taken into account if such conduct has a direct bearing on whether the testator knew and approved of the contents of the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 Whether the testator approved of or had knowledge of the contents of the Will is based on whether the testator understood:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_a"></a>(a) what was in the Will when he/she signed it; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_b"></a>(b) what its effect would be</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>(See case of <em>Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2010] SGCA 0027.xml')">[2010] SGCA 27</a>; <em>ULV v ULW</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22704-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGHCF 2</a><em>;</em> and <em>Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng and another</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18800-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGCA 24</a>.)</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Undue Influence </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 In the context of a Will, undue influence cannot be presumed. The burden of proof is on the party alleging the undue influence and in the probate context, it means coercion i.e. the testator is coerced into making a Will (or part of a Will), which the testator does not want to make. It must be shown that the testator was not merely persuaded but was pressured into losing his freedom of choice. The persuasion or pressure must have been of such an intensity as to overpower the volition of the testator without actually convincing the testator in his or her own judgment. It must be shown that the party accused of undue influence dominated the testator to such an extent that the testator’s independence was so undermined that the accused party’s domination caused the testator to execute the Will. This is a high burden of proving undue influence to vitiate any testamentary disposition. The test for undue influence in the testamentary context is therefore coercion alone. (See <em>UWF & Anor v UWH & Anor</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/26192-SSP.xml')">[2021] 4 SLR 314</a>).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 <em>In Rajaratnam Kumar (alias Rejaratnam Vairamuthu) v Estate of Rajaratnam Saravana Muthu (deceased) and another and another Suit</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2010] 4 SLR 0093.xml')">[2010] 4 SLR 93</a>, then Tan Lee Meng J held that:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“This is not easy to prove as undue influence in the making of a will is usually proven by the testimony of witnesses present at the execution of the wills or by forensic analysis.”</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Court’s Findings</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Did the deceased have testamentary capacity to execute the Will?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 The Plaintiff alleges at paragraph 10 of her Statement of Claim (Amendment No.1) that the deceased was not of sound mind, memory and understanding at the time he executed the Will due to the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_49-p2_a"></a>(a) The deceased suffered a long history of diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_49-p2_b"></a>(b) He was critically ill at the time.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_49-p2_c"></a>(c) A part of his foot below his toes was amputated on or about 12 August 2015.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_49-p2_d"></a>(d) He was heavily sedated with medication and barely awake.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Was the deceased of unsound mind, memory and understanding at the time he executed the Will?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 With regards to (a), the medical condition of the deceased is undisputed. With regards to (b) and (d), I found that apart from bare allegations, the Plaintiff did not produce any evidence in support of her claims. On the contrary, the Defendants were able to produce a medical report dated 20 September 2018 from Tan Tock Seng Hospital (“the medical report”)<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_42" id="Ftn_42_1"><sup>[note: 42]</sup></a></span> setting out the following information obtained from the documentation in the hospital’s medical records:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_50-p2_a"></a>(a) The deceased underwent left forefoot amputation on 12 August 2015 with no complications. Before and after the surgery, he was found to be alert comfortable, oriented to time, place and person. He himself signed the consent form for both the anaesthesia and surgery on 12 August 2015.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_50-p2_b"></a>(b) He was not heavily sedated and was given peripheral nerve block anaesthesia for the surgery on 12 August 2015, at 7.19 p.m. There were no documented pre- and post-operative anaesthesia complications noted.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_50-p2_c"></a>(c) From the day of surgery on 12 August 2015, including the day the deceased executed the Will on 17 August 2015, the deceased's vital signs were stable, alert and he was not in pain or distress. He was even seen by the physiotherapist on 18 August 2015 with no complain of pain and was able to ambulate with minimal assistance.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_50-p2_d"></a>(d) The deceased was competent to speak and understand what was said to him on 17 August 2015. The medical records showed that he was alert, comfortable, oriented to time, place and person and with stable vital signs on that day. He was not critically ill and did not suffer from any temporary incapacity.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 This is corroborated by the evidence of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and the witnesses – C, J, I and L – during the trial that the deceased was alert, able to recognise them and spoke normally with them.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Was the contents of the Will rational?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 During the trial and from the affidavits and evidence of the Plaintiff, it appeared to me that the Plaintiff’s main concern with the Will pertained to paragraph 6 of the Will, which stated that the deceased had married the Plaintiff in order to help her extend her stay in Singapore as an accompanying person to her child. It further stated that the deceased and the Plaintiff were unable to consummate their marriage.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 The Plaintiff asserted that the contents of paragraph 6 were untrue. She was able to produce documentary evidence to show that her applications for her Long Term Visit Pass in Singapore from the years 2010 to 2016 were sponsored by a friend, and not the deceased.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_43" id="Ftn_43_1"><sup>[note: 43]</sup></a></span> The Plaintiff further asserts that parties had consummated the marriage.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 While the purpose of this trial was not to determine whether the marriage of the deceased to the Plaintiff was indeed a “sham marriage”, the nature of their relationship is relevant for the purposes of assisting the court in determining whether the contents of the Will is rational. It is clear from the evidence of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and L that the deceased did have some blatant reservations, doubts and misgivings about his marriage with the Plaintiff. This is evident from the deceased’s conversations with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and L and the circumstances leading to the newspaper article incident and the execution of the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 In relation to the newspaper article incident, I found it difficult to believe that the deceased was uninvolved or unaware of the intentions behind the visit of the reporters to his flat, given his complaints to L prior to the incident. I note further from the Plaintiff’s evidence that no introductions were made as to the identity of these unrelated persons upon their arrival and it was the Plaintiff’s own assumption that they were relatives of the deceased. As such, I found it unbelievable that the deceased himself would bring strangers into his home for a visit without prior knowledge of who they were. There were also inconsistencies in the affidavit of the Plaintiff and her oral testimony, as stated at paragraphs 25 and 26 above, which I found difficult to reconcile.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 I also found it unusual that the deceased would issue receipts to the Plaintiff from November 2014 to July 2015 for payments made by the Plaintiff to the deceased allegedly in the context of a regular marriage. Although the Plaintiff claims that the receipts were unilaterally issued by the deceased to prove that the Plaintiff did her part to share in the family expenses as his wife, I found that the contents of the receipt appeared to be more of a clear delineation of the Plaintiff’s responsibilities as a contractual exchange between parties. This is consistent with the deceased’s complaints to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and L at paragraphs 16 and 17 above.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 In view of the above, I found that the deceased did not share the same view as the Plaintiff of the marriage being a valid one. Furthermore, given the deceased’s relationship and concern for the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant, I did not find anything out of the ordinary for the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant to be stated as the sole beneficiary of his estate in the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 In view of the evidence above, I found the contents of the deceased’s Will to be rational.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Presumption of Testamentary Capacity to operate</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 Based on the evidence before me, I am therefore satisfied that the presumption of testamentary capacity operates in this case. The Will was duly executed in ordinary circumstances where the deceased was not known to be suffering from any kind of mental disability. The Will also appears to be rational on its face.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 Given that the presumption applies, the burden of proving that the deceased was of unsound mind at the time of execution of the Will lies with the person alleging it i.e. the Plaintiff. However, apart from bare allegations, the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence, such as independent medical reports, to support her claims.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 As such, I find that the deceased was not of unsound mind, memory or understanding such that he was unable to execute the Will. On the contrary, the deceased had the requisite testamentary capacity required to execute the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Did the deceased have knowledge of the contents of the Will and did he approve it? </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 Since the presumption of testamentary capacity applies, a rebuttal presumption that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the Will arises in the present case. In order to reverse the presumption, the Plaintiff needs to show that the Will had been executed under suspicious circumstances.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Was the deceased’s signature a forgery?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 The Plaintiff alleges that the deceased’s signature was a forgery.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_44" id="Ftn_44_1"><sup>[note: 44]</sup></a></span> However, apart from a bare allegation, I find that there is insufficient evidence provided by the Plaintiff in support of her claim. Although the Plaintiff had submitted a certified true copy of the deceased’s Will to the Health Sciences Authority to ascertain whether the signature on the copy of the Will was the deceased’s, as some of the sample documents and the copy of the Will itself were not original documents and did not contain the original signature of the deceased, the report from the Health Sciences Authority was inconclusive on whether the signature of the deceased on the Will was forged.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_45" id="Ftn_45_1"><sup>[note: 45]</sup></a></span> No other evidence was provided by the Plaintiff in support of her claim.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Was the Will prepared and executed under suspicious circumstances or under the undue influence of someone?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 The Plaintiff alleges that the Will was prepared and executed under suspicious circumstances or under the undue influence of “someone” or “some persons”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_46" id="Ftn_46_1"><sup>[note: 46]</sup></a></span> The Plaintiff alleges the following particulars in support of her claims:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_64-p2_a"></a>(a) the purported Will could not have been prepared by the Deceased as he has no knowledge of the English language and had no access to a typewriter or computer at the hospital,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_64-p2_b"></a>(b) the deceased soon died in hospital about 2 weeks after executing the purported Will,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_64-p2_c"></a>(c) the deceased did not disclose to the Plaintiff of his intention to make a Will,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_64-p2_d"></a>(d) the Plaintiff seldom met any of the deceased's siblings during her visits to the hospital, and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_64-p2_e"></a>(e) the deceased's siblings have acted with hostility towards the Plaintiff including vandalising the corridor outside the matrimonial home and bringing reporters from the Chinese newspaper to the matrimonial home unannounced to report that the Plaintiff's marriage to the Deceased was a sham which is untrue.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 In her Statement of Claim (Amendment No.1), the Plaintiff omitted to state specifically who had exercised undue influence over the deceased. However, from her affidavit and evidence, the Plaintiff appeared to be insinuating that the persons who were against her marriage with the deceased, being L and the deceased’s relatives, had conspired against her resulting in the alleged Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 As stated at paragraphs 47 and 48 above, the law on undue influence is clear. It must be shown that the party accused of undue influence dominated the testator to such an extent that the testator’s independence was so undermined that the accused party’s domination caused the testator to execute the Will. The test for undue influence in the testamentary context is therefore coercion alone. This is a high burden of proving undue influence to vitiate any testamentary disposition.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_67"></a>67 I find that apart from making a stab in the dark with bare allegations, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to show that L, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant or the deceased’s siblings had exercised undue influence over the deceased in the execution of the Will for the following reasons:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_67-p2_a"></a>(a) First, it is undisputed that the deceased continued to live with the Plaintiff at the matrimonial flat prior to his admission into Tan Tock Seng Hospital on 6 August 2015. It was also the Plaintiff’s position that the deceased rarely met his siblings.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_47" id="Ftn_47_1"><sup>[note: 47]</sup></a></span> If that was indeed the case, it would appear difficult for the siblings to have any influence over the deceased given their lack of involvement in his life.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_67-p2_b"></a>(b) Second, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to show that the deceased’s independence was so undermined by any of the deceased’s siblings or relatives such that they were able to coerce him into executing the Will. On the contrary, it is the Plaintiff’s own evidence that she visited the deceased every day when he was hospitalized and that she was his emergency contact. According to the Plaintiff, the deceased did not contact any of his siblings nor did he request for her to do so.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_48" id="Ftn_48_1"><sup>[note: 48]</sup></a></span> In this regard, I find the Plaintiff’s evidence contradictory to her pleading of undue influence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_68"></a>68 I also did not find any suspicious circumstances in relation to the execution of the Will for the following reasons:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_68-p2_a"></a>(a) Although the deceased was not literate in the English language, the deceased had instructed L to prepare the Will for him. The Will was subsequently interpreted and explained to the deceased before he executed it. The deceased did not need to have knowledge of the English language nor did he require access to a typewriter or a computer to prepare the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_68-p2_b"></a>(b) Notwithstanding the deceased died two weeks after the execution of the Will, there is evidence to show that the deceased had the requisite testamentary capacity to execute the Will prior to his death.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_68-p2_c"></a>(c) Given my findings in relation to the nature of the deceased’s relationship with the Plaintiff as stated at paragraphs 54 to 57 above, it would only seem logical that the deceased did not inform the Plaintiff of his intention to execute a Will disinheriting her.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_68-p2_d"></a>(d) Although the Plaintiff may not have met the deceased’s siblings at the hospital, it does not eliminate the possibility of the deceased having met his siblings in her absence. In fact, it is the Plaintiff’s evidence that on 2 September 2015, she was informed by a nurse at Tan Tock Seng Hospital that the deceased's relatives had been visiting him every night since after 14 August 2015.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_68-p2_e"></a>(e) With regard to the allegations of the deceased’s siblings vandalising the corridor outside the matrimonial home and bringing reporters from the Chinese newspaper to report on the alleged sham marriage between the deceased and the Plaintiff, I find that:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_68-p2_e-p3_i"></a>(i) there is no evidence provided in the Plaintiff’s affidavit and her testimony in relation to the alleged vandalism.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_68-p2_e-p3_ii"></a>(ii) in relation to the Chinese newspaper article, I note that the incident occurred sometime in October 2014, almost 10 months prior to the preparation and execution of the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_68-p2_e-p3_iii"></a>(iii) none of these allegations were relevant in relation to the actual preparation and execution of the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69 For the reasons stated at paragraphs 65 to 67 above, I find that the Plaintiff has not satisfied the high bar of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the deceased had executed the Will under the undue influence of “someone” or “some persons” nor were there any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_70"></a>70 With regard to the counterclaim, I accepted the evidence of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, C, L and the witnesses to the Will that the Will was duly executed by the deceased:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_70-p2_a"></a>(a) It is undisputed by parties that the deceased was Chinese educated. He spoke mainly in mandarin and Hokkien.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_70-p2_b"></a>(b) From the evidence of L, the contents of the Will were drafted in accordance with the instructions of the deceased. It was the deceased who requested for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to be stated as the executor and for his flat to be left to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant. The deceased further instructed that he did not wish to leave his flat to the Plaintiff as he was of the view that it was a sham marriage.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_70-p2_c"></a>(c) From the evidence of C and the witnesses to the Will, the contents of the Will was translated and explained to the deceased in mandarin. During the translation and explanation, C would ask the deceased whether he understood the contents of the Will and the deceased would nod and answer in the affirmative.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_70-p2_d"></a>(d) Based on the medical report, the deceased was alert and was not temporarily incapacitated. He was able to speak and understand what was said to him.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_70-p2_e"></a>(e) After the Will was translated and explained to the deceased, the deceased signed at the bottom of the Will, in the presence of the witnesses and followed by J and then I, who signed the Will in the presence of the deceased and of each other.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_71"></a>71 As such, I find that the deceased did have knowledge of the contents of the Will and did approve the contents of the Will before voluntarily executing it.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_72"></a>72 In view of all the reasons stated above, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and granted the Defendants’ counterclaim against the Plaintiff for a declaration (a) pronouncing the force and validity of the Will dated 17 August 2015 made by the deceased and (b) that the Grant of Probate issued to the Defendants on 28 January 2016 be upheld.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_73"></a>73 Submissions on costs were adjourned to be heard at a later date. Parties have since submitted. Judgement is reserved on costs.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>See Exhibit TJH-2 of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s Affidavit of Evidence in Chief (“AEIC”).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No.1).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>See paragraph 30 of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>See Documents No. 3 and 45 of the Exhibit marked “HH-1” of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Paragraph 46 of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>See Document No. 5 of the Exhibit marked “HH-1” of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>See Documents 8 to 13 of the Exhibit marked “HH-1” of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Paragraph 2 of L’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Notes of Evidence (“NE”), Day 12, pages 30 and 47.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>NE Day 12, Page 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>See footnote 10 above.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Paragraph 3 of L’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>NE Day 12 page 65.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Paragraph 8 of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s AEIC, NE Day 9 page 29.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Paragraph 8 of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s AEIC, Paragraph 5 of C’s AEIC, NE Day 9 Page 30 and NE Day 7 Page 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>NE Day 12 Page 74.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>Paragraph 5 of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>Paragraph 6 of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>Paragraph 5 of L’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>Paragraph 6 of L’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>NE Day 12, page 50.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>Paragraphs 31 of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_26_1" id="Ftn_26">[note: 26]</a></sup>NE Day 5, page 39.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_27_1" id="Ftn_27">[note: 27]</a></sup>NE Day 5, page 27.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_28_1" id="Ftn_28">[note: 28]</a></sup>NE Day 5, page 33.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_29_1" id="Ftn_29">[note: 29]</a></sup>NE Day 5, page 38.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_30_1" id="Ftn_30">[note: 30]</a></sup>Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_31_1" id="Ftn_31">[note: 31]</a></sup>Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_32_1" id="Ftn_32">[note: 32]</a></sup>NE Day 4, page 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_33_1" id="Ftn_33">[note: 33]</a></sup>NE Day 4, page 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_34_1" id="Ftn_34">[note: 34]</a></sup>Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_35_1" id="Ftn_35">[note: 35]</a></sup>Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_36_1" id="Ftn_36">[note: 36]</a></sup>NE Day 8, page 36.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_37_1" id="Ftn_37">[note: 37]</a></sup>NE Day 5, page 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_38_1" id="Ftn_38">[note: 38]</a></sup>NE Day 4, pages 18 and 19.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_39_1" id="Ftn_39">[note: 39]</a></sup>See <em>ULV v ULW</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22704-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGHCF 2</a>.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_40_1" id="Ftn_40">[note: 40]</a></sup><em>Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2010] SGCA 0027.xml')">[2010] SGCA 27</a>.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_41_1" id="Ftn_41">[note: 41]</a></sup><em>UWF & Anor v UWH & Anor</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/26192-SSP.xml')">[2021] 4 SLR 314</a>.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_42_1" id="Ftn_42">[note: 42]</a></sup>See Exhibit “TJH-2” of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_43_1" id="Ftn_43">[note: 43]</a></sup>See Documents No. 28 to 34 of the Exhibit marked “HH-1” of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_44_1" id="Ftn_44">[note: 44]</a></sup>Paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No.1).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_45_1" id="Ftn_45">[note: 45]</a></sup>See Exhibit marked “HSA-1” of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit Verifying Supplementary List of Documents dated 4 August 2022.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_46_1" id="Ftn_46">[note: 46]</a></sup>See paragraph 13 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No.1).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_47_1" id="Ftn_47">[note: 47]</a></sup>Paragraph 29 of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_48_1" id="Ftn_48">[note: 48]</a></sup>See paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Plaintiff’s AEIC.</p></div></content></root> | 23b5f51faca1afb7427e6c77933418b0a68b70d6 |
Links from other tables
- 11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed