SUCCESSION

TANG AH LIK & ORS v. TAN AH BA [2025] 3 CLJ 362 (Court of Appeal)

Case Digest :

[1] A trustee or an executor of a will is under a duty to distribute the estate to the beneficiaries in accordance with the wishes of the testator.

[2] An agreement, made by the testator subsequent to the making of the will, which purported to change the provisions of the will, must be proven to have been intended by the testator. Hence, the court ought to critically test all evidence, including oral evidence, and consider the whole circumstances of the case in deciding whether the subsequent agreement has superseded the will.

TEOH YING RIN v. SAVATERY JAYARAMAN [2025] 5 CLJ 92 (Court of Appeal)

Case Digest :

[1] The role of the witnesses of the impugned will was to witness the signing and verify that it was the testator who signed on the will. They were not to verify the testator was fully aware of the terms of the will and that the testator acknowledged and approved each and every term of the impugned will.

[2] Suspicious circumstances are mere evidence of facts leading to speculation that the testator may not have knowledge and approval of the contents or part of the contents of a will. As long as the suspicion is removed by affirmative proof, through admitted evidence in the trial, that the testator had the knowledge of and had given his approval to the impugned will, that would suffice to satisfy the conscience of the court. The court should disregard whether the way in which the testator had decided to distribute his assets in the impugned will was 'fair' or 'unfair' to the respondent.

DISCLAIMER: THE CONTENTS HEREIN ARE INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. SHOULD YOU HAVE FURTHER QUERIES AND/OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FULL ARTICLE, KINDLY CONTACT US.