Goh Yng Yng Karen (executrix of the estate of Liew Khoon Fong (alias Liew Fong), deceased) v Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin [2020] SGHC 195

Outcome: Orders made

Facts

1.           The Deceased’s daughter (“Daughter”) was the sole donee under the Deceased’s lasting power of attorney and sole executrix under the Deceased’s will.  The Daughter sought a declaration that two powers of attorney (“POA”) made by the Deceased before her passing in favour of her son for the sale and purchase of property were void. One issue was whether the Deceased had mental capacity to execute the POAs, and the Daughter relied on expert testimony to the effect that the Deceased was suffering from moderate dementia at the relevant time and could not have understood the implications of the POAs signed.

Court’s Decision:

2.           The High Court granted a declaration that the two POAs executed by the Deceased were void as she lacked mental capacity to execute the POAs, and also found that the POAs were vitiated by undue influence.

3.           “Lack of capacity” is defined in s 4(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2008 (“MCA”), and s 5(1) of the MCA provides for circumstances under which a person is unable to make a decision for himself or herself. S 5(2) and s 5(3) of the MCA further explains that: (a) one is not found to be unable to understand information relevant to a decision if he or she can understand an explanation in simpler language or through other means; and (b) if one is able to retain information relevant to a decision only for a short period, he may still be regarded as being able to make the decision: at [30] to [31].

4.           The test for capacity in s 4(1) of the MCA has a functional and clinical component: (a) the functional aspect is that the person (“P”) must be unable to make a decision – this is to be determined from all the evidence on P’s interactions with others; and (b) the clinical aspect is that P’s inability must be caused by a mental impairment – this is to be assessed using expert evidence based on P’s observable symptoms and other available diagnostic tools: at [32] to [33].

5.           The court should holistically assess the issue of mental capacity. In MCA proceedings where P’s mental capacity is questioned, and there is also allegation of undue influence, mental capacity and the exertion of undue influence should be considered holistically. The interaction between mental capacity and undue influence is also relevant. The court should not adopt a theoretical analysis, and should consider and not overlook the actual circumstances in which P lived: at [34] and [104].

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.