Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

WILL – SECRET TRUST – TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY

Q: Can a will be challenged on the ground that my father was so sick that it is impossible for him to sign a will with a conscious mind?
A: You may challenge the will on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity of your father at the time when a will was signed.

Essentially, the testator must understand the nature of the act and effects of signing a will. He must understand the extent of the property he is disposing. He must understand the claims of his property that he will give effect upon his death.

To determine whether a person has a testamentary capacity, the court will look at the soundness of the mind of the testator and NOT the particular state of bodily health.

Q: What is the meaning of soundness of the mind of the testator?
A: To displace testamentary capacity by reason of soundness of mind, proof of serious illness is NOT enough. There must be clear evidence that illness of the testator affects his mental faculties eg. mental disorder or insane delusion. To the extent that he is not able to dispose of his property in a will on the day the will is made. There should be medical evidence that support the testator does not have testamentary capacity.

Courts have in the past made the following observation. Terminal cancer patient (even if he is deaf and dumb), chronic diabetic and patient who had serious accident which left him in a quadriplegic condition – did not mean the deceased did not have the testamentary capacity when making the will.

Q: Who has the legal burden to prove lack of testamentary capacity?
A: The legal burden is on the party who challenge the will to prove that the testator lacked the testamentary capacity to make the will.

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us