When an elderly individual loses mental capacity, disputes may arise over who should take on the responsibility of care and financial management — especially when established family ties intersect with newer, non-traditional relationships. The recent High Court case of WVH and another v WVG and another appeal and other matters [2025] SGHCF 22 presents such a scenario — where adult children and the companion of the mentally incapacitated person clashed over control and access.

While the Court ultimately found that the companion’s actions were not in the best interests of the vulnerable individual, her role in providing care and emotional support was not dismissed. This case highlights how complexity in personal relationships and differing views over “the best interest” of an individual can become a source of tension when no formal arrangements are made early. More importantly, it reinforces the value of timely and clear Estate Planning instruments — particularly the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) — to avoid contested deputyship proceedings and ensure continuity of care.

Facts of the Case

An elderly gentleman, P, had been in a relationship with Z since 2014, following his separation from his wife. After suffering a motorcycle accident in 2016, P’s health declined, and he was diagnosed with Dementia in 2020.

In 2022, his children, X and Y, applied to be appointed as P’s deputies for personal welfare and property matters and was granted by the court without challenge.

Z only learned of the appointment when X and Y subsequently filed a summons to restrict her access to P. She then filed her own application to revoke the orders and to be appointed as a co-deputy. The District Judge eventually ordered a compromise: Z’s application to revoke the orders was dismissed, however, she was to be added as co-deputy for personal welfare, while X and Y retained authority over P’s property. Z then appealed against the dismissal of her application to revoke the original Deputyship Order while X and Y had appealed against the rest of the judgement by the District Judge.

Subsequently, a mediated Settlement Agreement was signed in 2024 such that Z’s appeal would be dismissed while X and Y’s appeal was to be allowed, and that the parties would agree to support P’s transition into an Assisted Living Facility (ALF). However, when X and Y admitted P into ALF without consulting Z, she refused to extract the consent orders and resumed litigation, claiming that X and Y had not obtained her consent and hence had breached the Settlement Agreement.

Key Legal Issues

The High Court was asked to determine:

1. Whether the Settlement Agreement had been breached by X & Y when they failed to seek Z’s consent in shifting P to the ALF;
2. Whether Z’s continued role as co-deputy for personal welfare was appropriate; and
3. Who was best suited to manage P’s personal and financial matters moving forward.

Decision and Reasoning of the Court

The Court found that the Settlement Agreement had not been breached. While the agreement required the parties to “work towards persuading” P to stay at an ALF, it did not stipulate that Z’s consent was needed to proceed. The Judge accepted that X and Y acted appropriately in securing timely admission for P, given the availability of a suitable vacancy and the increasing complexity of his care.

However, Z’s behavior following P’s admission raised serious concerns. Evidence showed that she had interfered with medical instructions, caused repeated disruptions at the facility, and influenced P to disregard the care staff, including telling him he was being imprisoned and removing him from the ALF against medical advice.

In addition, the Court noted a troubling financial transaction: after his dementia diagnosis, P had transferred $200,000 to Z. While Z agreed to return $90,000, the transaction raised concerns about P’s ability to give valid instructions and further supported the decision to retain X and Y as financial deputies.

The Court therefore:

• Revoked Z’s role as deputy for personal welfare;
• Confirmed X and Y as the sole deputies for both personal welfare and property matters;
• Granted Z limited, structured visitation rights to maintain her connection with P.

Estate Planning Lessons: What Could Have Been Done Differently

One of the key takeaways from this case is how longstanding tensions can severely complicate caregiving and decision-making arrangements once mental capacity is lost. In situations like this, where there is clear animosity between parties, Estate Planning must anticipate conflict. Had P executed a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) during his lucid years, he could have formally appointed his preferred Donees — be it his children, Z, or a combination — and defined their respective powers and responsibilities. Doing so would have given legal effect to his personal intentions, rather than leaving room for competing narratives. Importantly, it could have prevented a court-supervised deputyship process where the parties perform roles they neither expected nor trusted each other to fulfil.

Beyond the LPA, Advance Care Planning (ACP) could have played a meaningful role in addressing anticipated disputes over care arrangements. ACP allows individuals to articulate their healthcare preferences and personal values — for example, whether they wish to remain at home with a particular caregiver, enter a care facility, or maintain contact with certain individuals. While not legally binding, ACP documentation is increasingly respected by medical professionals and can be a crucial reference point when deputies or the court are called upon to act in the person’s best interests.

Finally, this case shows that silence can be harmful. When personal wishes are not communicated or recorded — particularly in families with known tensions — those left behind are left to speculate, assume, and argue. Even informal expressions of intent, shared clearly while the individual still has mental capacity, can reduce misunderstanding and shape more constructive outcomes later on.

In summary, when familial relationships are already fractured, early planning becomes not just helpful — it becomes essential. Clear documentation, formal appointments, and candid communication may not heal wounds, but they can provide a stable legal footing that spares the vulnerable individual from becoming the centre of conflict.

How SMTP Can Help

At Sim Mong Teck & Partners, we recognise that family dynamics are often layered and complex — particularly when involving long-term partners, blended households, or estranged relationships. In such cases, Estate Planning cannot rely on assumptions or informal understandings. It requires clarity, structure, and foresight.

Our team is experienced in helping clients take early and decisive steps to prevent disputes and ensure care continuity. Amongst the services we provide, we assist with:

• Conducting our proprietary Wealth and Legacy Screening, a guided discovery process that uncovers a client’s true intentions, concerns, and relational dynamics, which forms the foundation of a structured and tailored estate plan;
• Preparing and registering Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA) so that decision-makers are clearly appointed before mental capacity is lost;
• Facilitating Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations to help clients record their care preferences and personal values for future reference by medical professionals and family members;
• Drafting Wills that reflect a client’s unique wishes and circumstances, ensuring that their estate is distributed with clarity and minimal risk of dispute.

By putting proper plans in place early, our clients are able to avoid uncertainty and protect their intentions with legal precision. If you or your clients are navigating complex caregiving arrangements or planning ahead for your own future, please feel free to contact our Business Development team to schedule a consultation. We look forward to working with you.