Introduction

Challenges to the validity of a will are not uncommon, and one of the most frequently raised issues is whether the testator had the requisite mental capacity at the time the will was executed. This is especially relevant in situations involving elderly individuals who may be experiencing cognitive decline. As people increasingly live longer and manage more complex personal and financial affairs in later life, the importance of clearly documenting testamentary intent and mental capacity has become paramount.

The Family Division of the High Court’s decision in WWI v WWJ [2024] SGHCF 28 illustrates the legal and practical complexities that can arise in such situations. The case centred around three wills executed by a mother at different stages in her later years. Her children disputed which will should be upheld, with the key issue being whether she had the mental capacity to make those decisions at the relevant times.

In this article, we summarise the factual background and legal proceedings, explain how the Court came to its decision, and highlight the estate planning lessons that can be drawn from the case.

Factual Background

The dispute arose between two brothers from a family of 14 children: the respondent (WWJ), the eldest son and a businessman, and the appellant (WWI), the fourth son and a schoolteacher. Central to the case was the deceased mother’s (Mother) share in a property known as 2 JM, one of several family properties developed and redeveloped over decades.

The Mother executed three wills:

1. 1st Will (22 March 2005) – Drafted and witnessed by a lawyer (CJH), this will bequeathed her entire estate to WWJ, with token gifts of $5,000 to each of seven daughters. The family was aware of this will and requested for the will to be changed but the Mother refused.

2. 2nd Will (7 April 2017) – Arranged by WWI, this will gave the entire estate to               WWI, substituting his               son should he predecease the testatrix. This will had been executed despite the Mother scoring   poorly               (14/28) in a Mini-Mental State Examination before the execution of the will.             
3. 3rd Will (15 June 2017) – Executed under WWJ’s direction and again drafted by CJH, it largely mirrored the 1st Will but increased the daughters’ legacies to $10,000. It was executed before a subsequent medical assessment was obtained.

Following the Mother’s passing on 2 December 2019, WWJ obtained probate based on the 3rd Will. WWI subsequently challenged its validity and sought to assert the 2nd Will instead.

 

Findings

The trial was first heard before District Judge Chiang, who ruled that both the 2nd and 3rd Wills were invalid due to concerns over the Mother’s testamentary capacity and suspicious circumstances surrounding their execution. The 1st Will, being the earliest and most formally robust, was upheld.

On appeal, Justice Choo Han Teck affirmed this decision. His Honour carefully reviewed the evidentiary matrix, including medical assessments, procedural irregularities, and the parties’ conduct.

 

Key Factors in the Court’s Reasoning

1. Medical Evidence and Testamentary Capacity

The Court placed significant weight on the report of Dr FN, who “…seemed to have carried out a more thorough examination of the Mother’s mental capacity than the other doctors” and opined that the Mother had moderate dementia in July 2017 and that her cognitive decline likely began at least a year prior. He concluded that any decisions made during this period were likely invalid.

In contrast, the estate planners who were witnesses to the 2^nd Will did not even know that some of the answers by the Mother to their cursory questions (presumably to ascertain her mental capacity) had been wrong.

 

2. Suspicious Circumstances

Justice Choo noted that “it was obvious to any impartial observer that both the 2^nd and 3^rd wills were made under suspicious circumstances”, with each son attempting to convince the Mother to change and execute the will in such a way that would benefit himself- WWI had arranged for the Mother to execute the 2^nd Will, knowing full well that she had scored poorly for the Mini-Mental State Examination she took prior to the execution of the 2^nd Will and going against the doctor’s recommendation to undergo a full test. The 3rd Will, though drafted by a lawyer, was executed, under the arrangement of WWJ, without prior medical evaluation, and only after execution did the lawyer recommend a mental capacity assessment.

The Court commented that nothing that the two brothers did were “aboveboard or transparent” and that the 1^st Will was found to be valid simply because it was the last will standing and that no siblings challenged its validity.

 

3. Rationality of Will Terms

The Court rejected arguments that the rationality of the 2nd Will (on its face) implied capacity because the terms in the 2^nd Will favoured WWI and according to the court, “all this shows is that the terms and hence, the rationality of the Will, emanated from the appellant and not the Mother”.

 

Estate Planning Lessons

This case illustrates the following critical estate planning takeaways:

1. Plan Well, Plan early

The 2005 Will was ultimately upheld because it was executed over a decade earlier before the rest of the wills when the testator was in better health and had access to independent legal advice. Early Planning ensures clarity of intent and reduces the likelihood of disputes.

2. Mental Capacity Should Formally and Comprehensively Assessed When in Doubt

Especially in cases involving elderly individuals or signs of cognitive decline, it is vital to obtain a contemporaneous and comprehensive medical assessment of testamentary capacity. This provides strong evidentiary support if the will is later challenged.

 

3. Avoiding Suspicious Circumstances

Beneficiaries should distant themselves as much from the will execution process to show the testator’s independence and that the testator had not been influenced or coerced by the beneficiary into executing a Will to the benefit of the latter.

 

4. Role of Professionals

It is important to engage professionals like lawyers, doctors and estate planners that will be vigilant and ensure that procedural safeguards are adhered to and that their assessments are thorough and defensible.

 

How Sim Mong Teck & Partners Can Help

At Sim Mong Teck & Partners, we understand the intricacies of estate planning in Singapore’s multi-generational and often complex family environments. Drawing from this case, we reinforce our commitment to providing:

• Comprehensive Wealth and Legacy Screening

Before any document is drafted, our detailed screening process uncovers key family dynamics, health concerns, and potential areas of conflict, ensuring the estate plan reflects true intentions.

 

• Protocols to Ensure Requisite Mental Capacity

We require our clients to engage experienced medical professionals and certified mental capacity              assessors to ensure they are capable to provide instructions on their estate planning documents.   (especially clients who are of advanced age or in frail health).

• Conflict Mitigation Strategies

Our team guides our clients through sensitive discussions to minimise disputes and offers structured solutions such as family trusts or staggered gifting.

• Lifetime Estate Planning Advisory

We go beyond wills to help clients plan for lifetime asset transfers, business succession and even advance care plans.

 

This case reaffirms a simple truth: proactive and thoughtful estate planning is not merely a legal formality, but a gift of clarity and peace to one’s loved ones. At Sim Mong Teck & Partners, we are honoured to walk with our clients through every step of that journey. Should you or your clients require any assistance in estate planning matters, please feel free to contact our Business Development Team to schedule a consultation. We look forward to working with you.