WWI v WWJ [2024] SGHCF 28

Outcome: Appeal Dismissed.

Facts

1            The respondent is the eldest son and the third child of 14 children, while the appellant is the twelfth child. In 2005, the Mother executed a will (“the 1st Will”) at the respondent’s home upon the respondent’s advice. After the Mother scored poorly in a Mini-Mental State Examination in 2017, the appellant made arrangements for the Mother to execute a Lasting Power of Attorney (“LPA”) and a new will (“the 2nd Will”). Once the respondent learned about the 2nd Will, he arranged for the Mother to execute another Will (“the 3rd Will”) along the terms of the 1st Will.

2            The trial judge found the 2nd and 3rd Wills to be invalid. The issue on appeal is whether the Mother had the mental capacity to make the 2nd and 3rd Wills.

Court’s Decision:

3            The DJ relied on the overall testimony of Dr FN who seemed to have carried out a more thorough examination of the Mother’s mental capacity than the other doctors. Furthermore, his findings, seen in the circumstances before and after the 2nd Will was executed, seems more accurate than any other view.: at [19].

4            This is a case where an entitled eldest son and an entitled favourite son tried to outmanoeuvre each other with the objective of gaining their Mother’s half share of the property 2 JM. Nothing either of them did regarding those two Wills were aboveboard or transparent.: at [20].

5            The appellant cannot rely on the argument that he was a layman and therefore cannot be expected or taken to understand the legal significance of a formal mental capacity assessment. Not only did the appellant not taken the Mother for a mental capacity assessment, the lawyer before whom he brought the Mother to sign a lasting power of attorney was not called to testify. at [21].

6          The central issue is the mental capacity of the testator, the Mother. If she did not have the mental capacity, and the Will appears rational though the lion’s share goes to the appellant, all this shows is that the terms, and hence, the rationality of the Will, emanated from the appellant and not the Mother.: at [22].

The full text of the decision can be found here. 

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.