Estate planning often turns on one crucial question: Did the testator truly understand the decisions made when signing a will? While many assume that medical records hold the answer, the case of [2025] SGHC(A) 15 reminds us that when medical evidence is sparse or inconclusive, the most persuasive testimony may come instead from those who were present at the moment of execution.
In this case, it was not doctors or specialists but two ordinary individuals — the attesting witnesses — whose observations proved decisive. Their clear, consistent testimony of a 96-year-old man who remained lucid, decisive, and fully aware of the consequences of giving all of his assets to only one of children, outweighed the ambiguous medical notes tendered by the contesting party.
In this months Family Legacy Planning article, we explore the case of [2025] SGHC(A) 15 (the “Case”) starting with a brief background on the facts of the case, followed by how the Court approached the competing evidence, and why the witnesses present at the signing ultimately became the most reliable guides to the testator’s state of mind. This article shall also distil the broader principles the case reinforces and the practical lessons that anyone preparing a will should take away.
Background
The testator (“T”), a 96-year-old retired civil servant, lived independently after his wife’s passing. Known to be disciplined and meticulous, T was also capable of managing his financial affairs up to the time of his death in December 2012.
Two wills were at issue:
- a 2011 handwritten will leaving his bungalow to his daughter (the Appellant); and
- a 2012 typed will revoking all prior wills and leaving his estate to his son (the Respondent).
The Appellant claimed that T lacked testamentary capacity when signing the 2012 Will, citing alleged diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. However, as the Court noted, she could identify no doctor who made such a diagnosis, nor any record substantiating it.
Legal Framework
Reaffirming the principles in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 and Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline [2010] 4 SLR 373, the Court reiterated that a valid will requires that the testator:
- understands the nature and effect of making a will;
- knows the extent of his property;
- recognises those with potential claims on his estate; and
- is free from any mental disorder affecting judgment.
The burden lies on the will’s propounder to prove testamentary capacity, but this is prima facie satisfied where a will is executed in ordinary circumstances and the testator was not known to be suffering from mental impairment.
The Evidence
(a) Medical Evidence — Limited and Inconclusive
The Court carefully examined the medical documents relied on by the Appellant and agreed with the lower court that they did not prove incapacity at the material time.
- The hospital’s radiology report, that the Appellant sought to rely upon, merely mentioned “memory loss” with no indication of its severity or whether it affected T’s ability to understand the will ([51]).
- The hospital’s discharge summaries from November 2012 referred to “Alzheimer’s disease ? vascular dementia” only under “past medical history,” not as clinical diagnoses ([52]).
- A note stating T “cannot remember why he called the ambulance” ([54]) was not supported by witness testimony from the recording officer and could not, in isolation, establish incapacity.
- The Court reiterated that even proven memory loss is not, by itself, evidence of a lack of testamentary capacity ([55]).
Furthermore, no medical expert or treating physician was called to interpret the records. Without such expert testimony, the Court could not infer that the alleged conditions affected T’s cognitive abilities. As the Court concluded in paragraph 57 of the Case, the records “did not sufficiently support the contention that the Testator lacked testamentary capacity.”
(b) The Attesting Witnesses — Clear, Consistent, and Unshaken
In stark contrast, the two attesting witnesses — identified as [F] and [G] — gave direct, credible, and unchallenged accounts of T’s lucidity on the day the will was executed.
[F], who had known T since childhood, described him as strong-willed and attentive to detail. He recalled that when he pointed out the clause leaving “0%” to T’s other children, T stared at him firmly and said that the Respondent was his “favourite son” and “would know what to do.” As the Court noted ([22]), this exchange showed T “knew exactly what he wanted to do.” [F] conversed with T for about 30 minutes afterward and found him entirely lucid.
At Paragraph 23 of the judgement, the Court emphasised that none of [F]’s testimony was challenged. [G] corroborated the same exchange and confirmed that T appeared alert and coherent; his evidence, too, was unchallenged ([24]).
These two independent witnesses — with no personal interest in the outcome — offered direct evidence of T’s decisiveness and mental clarity at the critical moment. Their accounts carried substantial weight and stood in contrast to the speculative interpretation of ambiguous medical notes.
(c) The Testator’s Financial Conduct
Further supporting capacity, T’s ongoing management of his bank account and household finances until shortly before his death showed that he remained capable of handling complex matters. As the Court observed ([68]), this behaviour was “wholly inconsistent with a mind so impaired as to be incapable of understanding a will.”
The Court’s Findings
The Appellate Division upheld the lower court’s conclusion that the 2012 Will was validly executed by a testator of sound mind. The Appellant failed to produce convincing medical evidence of incapacity, relying instead on ambiguous records without supporting expert interpretation.
By contrast, the attesting witnesses provided strong, contemporaneous, and unchallenged testimony demonstrating T’s lucidity and understanding. Their evidence, aligned with T’s continued financial competence and the straightforward nature of the will, established that he both knew and approved of its contents.
Since the 2011 Will’s validity was undisputed and the 2012 Will was executed in ordinary circumstances with two independent witnesses, the burden rested on the Appellant to prove incapacity — a burden she failed to meet. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Lessons from the Case
XBP v XBO underscores a crucial truth in will disputes: clarity of observation can outweigh ambiguity of diagnosis. Courts look not only at medical records but also at credible lay testimony — particularly that of witnesses who directly interacted with the testator at the time of execution.
The case also highlights the importance of contemporaneous documentation. Had medical professionals or legal advisors recorded explicit observations of T’s mental state, the litigation might have been avoided entirely.
SMTP’s Final Thoughts
At SMTP, we see such cases as powerful reminders of what distinguishes a defensible will from one open to challenge. Testamentary disputes rarely turn on complex medical theories alone — they turn on whether the will’s execution was properly conducted, with clear evidence of the testator’s understanding.
In assisting our clients with the preparation of their wills, we take proper stapes like ensuring wills are signed in the presence of independent witnesses who can later attest to the testator’s awareness and intention (usually, the lawyers themselves); keeping detailed notes of instructions, discussions, and explanations of the will’s contents; and where appropriate, obtaining a doctor’s confirmation of capacity at the time of signing.
These steps do more than comply with procedure — they protect the integrity of a client’s final wishes and preserve family harmony for generations to come.
For guidance on drafting, reviewing, or updating your will — or to integrate your estate plan with wider legacy and trust arrangements — contact SMTP’s Business Development Executives to schedule a consultation. Our team stands ready to help ensure your intentions are clear, enforceable, and future-proofed.
