Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

1. Summary and Facts:
Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Song & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891 concerns on validity of a will executed on 10.5.2014 by the late Mr Kong Siew Tong, who was 97 years old, illiterate, and wheelchair bound. He was survived by two wives and thirteen children, including the Appellants and Respondents. The will was prepared by the family lawyer, attested by two witnesses, and later kept under the Respondents’ control. The Appellants challenged the will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances, and undue influence. The High Court rejected all challenges, upheld the validity of the will, granted probate to the 1st Respondent, and appointed him sole executor. The Appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

2. Legal Issues:
• Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Deceased had testamentary capacity, that no suspicious circumstances existed, and that the will was not procured by undue influence.
• Whether adverse inferences were wrongly drawn against the Appellants under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 due to their failure to question certain witnesses.
• Whether the “Golden Rule”, which requires medical confirmation of testamentary capacity in cases involving aged or infirm testators, ought to have been applied.

3. Court’s Findings:
• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision.
• There was genuine doubt about the Deceased’s testamentary capacity, given his very old age, illiteracy, wheelchair-bound condition, and indications of senility.
• As the parties relying on the will, the Respondents failed to prove that the Deceased had the necessary capacity when the will was executed.
• The Court of Appeal considered the “Golden Rule” in Re Simpson’s Case, which recommends medical confirmation of testamentary capacity for elderly or infirm testators, and noted that no doctor was involved to examine or record testamentary capacity, which was fatal.
• Combined with undue influence and the suspicious circumstances of the will, this cast doubt on its voluntariness.
• The Court declared the will invalid, held that the Deceased died intestate, and appointed the 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent as co-administrators under the Distribution Act 1958.

4. Practical Implications:
This judgment affirms the several principle of laws including:
• Family members or potential beneficiaries should not control access, restrict contact, or otherwise exert influence over a testator, as this can invalidate a will.
• The burden of proving the testator’s capacity will bear on the person who seeking to enforce the will.
• The will shall be executed in a proper way in order to avoid dispute.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami