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

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们