Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGFC 128
- Court: Family Court of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 2 March 2026
- Judges: District Judge Cassandra Cheong
- Case/Proceeding Numbers: FC/S 9 of 2023; HCF/DCA 93 of 2025
- Title: XVQ v XVR & Anor
- Plaintiff/Applicant: XVQ
- Defendant/Respondent: XVR & Anor
- Legal Area: Probate and Administration; Validity of Will; Testamentary Capacity; Knowledge and Approval; Undue Influence
- Statutes Referenced: Housing and Development Board Act 1959; Wills Act 1838; Probate and Administration Act 1934
- Length of Judgment: 69 pages; 19,473 words
- Hearing Dates: 25 to 28 November 2024; 2–3 December 2024; 8–9 January 2025; 8 August 2025
Summary
In XVQ v XVR & Anor ([2025] SGFC 128), the Family Court determined a dispute over the validity of a will executed by the deceased on 22 June 2020 (“the 2020 Will”). The plaintiff, XVQ, challenged the 2020 Will on grounds that the circumstances of execution were suspicious and that the deceased was allegedly misled and unduly influenced by the defendant, XVR, to execute a will that reflected the defendant’s instructions rather than the deceased’s true intentions. The defendant counterclaimed for a declaration that the 2020 Will was the deceased’s true and last will and sought probate.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s challenge. It found that the plaintiff’s allegations were “bare allegations” and were not substantiated by the evidence. The court also granted the defendant’s counterclaim in substance, thereby upholding the 2020 Will. Although the deceased had suffered a stroke in 2012, the court held that this did not impair her testamentary capacity at the time of executing the 2020 Will. The court further accepted that the deceased had knowledge of and approved the contents of the 2020 Will, and it rejected the claim of undue influence or coercion.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The deceased was the subject of multiple testamentary instruments. She had three sons and a granddaughter, P. The plaintiff, XVQ, was the youngest of the deceased’s three sons. The defendant, XVR, was the deceased’s youngest sister. The dispute concerned the deceased’s 2020 Will, which revoked all prior wills and appointed the defendant as sole executrix and trustee. The 2020 Will also made specific bequests, including the deceased’s HDB flat (located at Klang Lane) to the second son, and the remainder of the estate (including bank monies and certain shares) to the defendant, with nominal sums of $1.00 to each of the sons and the residuary estate to the defendant.
It was undisputed that the 2020 Will was prepared by a law firm (A Law Corporation (“ALC”)) and by a former associate, Ms C. The will was executed at the office of ALC, with witnesses being staff of the firm. Importantly, the defendant was not physically present at the execution; she was in Perth, Australia, where she had been residing since 2005. This fact became relevant to the plaintiff’s narrative that the defendant had effectively dictated changes to the will before execution, despite being overseas.
Before the 2020 Will, the deceased executed two earlier wills. Under the 2018 Will, the defendant and a friend of the deceased were appointed executors and trustees. The 2018 Will provided that the HDB flat would be held on trust for the granddaughter, P, until she attained 21 years of age, after which the arrangement would continue according to the will’s terms. The 2018 Will also directed that the deceased’s ready cash, CPF monies, bank accounts, insurance policies, jewellery, and other items in the HDB flat would be given to the defendant, and it provided $1.00 to each of the three sons. The 2018 Will was independently drafted by solicitors engaged by the deceased, and it was executed by the deceased affixing her left thumbprint in the presence of two solicitors who acted as witnesses. The defendant and plaintiff were not involved in the preparation or execution of the 2018 Will.
The 2019 Will was drafted by a solicitor, Mr D, who was a long-time family friend of the deceased. Mr D did not act as a witness for wills he drafted, and he referred the deceased to another solicitor, Mr E, for execution. Mr E explained the contents of the 2019 Will in Tamil, and the deceased confirmed she understood the contents before affixing her left thumbprint in the presence of Mr E and another witness, M. Under the 2019 Will, executors and trustees were appointed (including Mr D and the plaintiff’s wife, B). The 2019 Will provided for the HDB flat to be held on trust for P until she attained 30 years of age, with additional restrictions: the trustees were not to rent out the flat, the flat was not to be sold after transfer to P, and P was required to continue staying at the property until her demise. The 2019 Will also directed that cash, CPF monies, bank accounts, insurance policies, jewellery, furniture, and fittings in the HDB flat be given to P, and it provided $1.00 to each son.
After execution of the 2019 Will, the original was entrusted to Mr D for safekeeping. The deceased later requested its return in February 2020, and Mr D suspected she intended to execute a new will. The deceased died on 19 September 2021 after a tragic fall. On the night of 18 September 2021, the plaintiff’s wife attempted to contact the deceased but received no response. She went to the deceased’s home, called out, and found the deceased unresponsive. Police and SCDF were called, and the door was forced open. The deceased was found lifeless on the floor of her living room due to head injuries from the fall.
On 16 February 2022, the plaintiff commenced probate proceedings in the Family Division of the High Court, which were later transferred to the Family Justice Courts due to the estate’s value. On 15 May 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the 2020 Will was void and invalid, probate to be granted to the executors appointed in the 2019 Will, and an order for the defendant to provide a full and detailed account of the deceased’s assets, including an Australian property. The plaintiff’s challenge to the 2020 Will was premised on allegations that (i) the circumstances were suspicious because changes were allegedly instructed by the defendant rather than by the deceased; (ii) the defendant allegedly misrepresented to the deceased that the defendant would hold the estate on trust for the beneficiaries; and (iii) the deceased was allegedly unduly influenced, coerced, or manipulated into executing the 2020 Will.
During the proceedings, the plaintiff initially pleaded a secret trust theory but later abandoned it. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s allegations and counterclaimed for a declaration that the 2020 Will was the deceased’s true and last will, for probate to be granted to the defendant, and for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide an account of property allegedly seized by him. The defendant also clarified during trial that she did not dispute the execution of the 2019 Will.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The court had to determine whether the 2020 Will was validly executed and whether it reflected the deceased’s true testamentary intentions. This required the court to consider the statutory formalities for execution under the Wills Act 1838, including whether the will was executed in accordance with the required witnessing and execution requirements.
Second, the court had to assess testamentary capacity. Although the deceased had suffered a stroke in 2012, the plaintiff did not argue that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of executing the 2020 Will. Nevertheless, the court still addressed the issue because testamentary capacity is a foundational requirement for will validity, and the existence of a prior stroke could potentially raise concerns about cognitive ability and understanding.
Third, the court had to evaluate whether the deceased had knowledge of and approved the contents of the 2020 Will. Closely linked to this was the question of undue influence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant suggested the terms to the deceased, made misrepresentations, and exerted undue influence such that the deceased did not freely and independently decide the contents of the will.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court approached the case by applying established principles governing will validity disputes in Singapore. It structured its analysis around the key elements: due execution, testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, and undue influence. The court also considered whether any presumption of capacity applied and whether the plaintiff had discharged the evidential burden necessary to disturb the presumption and to substantiate allegations of suspicious circumstances or undue influence.
On due execution, the court examined whether the 2020 Will was executed in accordance with section 6 of the Wills Act 1838. The judgment indicates that the 2020 Will was prepared by solicitors and executed at the firm’s office with witnesses who were staff of the firm. The court’s reasoning reflects that where formalities are satisfied, the starting point is that the will is duly executed, and the challenger must provide credible evidence to undermine validity.
On testamentary capacity, the court noted that the deceased had suffered a stroke in 2012. However, the court relied on medical reports dated 21 December 2016 and 14 March 2017 to conclude that the deceased remained able to function independently after her stroke. The court also pointed to evidence of the deceased’s continued care of P and her running of an employment agency up to the date of her death. This factual context supported the conclusion that the stroke did not affect her ability to understand and appreciate the nature and effect of making a will, and therefore did not impair her testamentary capacity at the time of executing the 2020 Will.
On knowledge and approval, the court considered whether the contents of the 2020 Will were rational and whether the deceased knew and approved them. The plaintiff’s case was that the defendant suggested changes and that the deceased executed the will based on misrepresentation and influence. The court’s analysis, however, emphasised the evidential weakness of the plaintiff’s assertions. The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations were not supported by concrete evidence. In will disputes, courts typically require more than speculation; they look for reliable testimony, documentary evidence, or other indicia showing that the testator did not understand the contents or did not assent to them freely.
On undue influence and suspicious circumstances, the court addressed the plaintiff’s narrative that the defendant, despite being in Perth, effectively dictated the terms of the 2020 Will and manipulated the deceased into executing it. The court rejected this. While the judgment extract provided does not reproduce the full evidential detail, the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s allegations were “bare allegations” indicates that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary factual foundation. The court also appears to have taken into account that the 2020 Will was prepared by solicitors and executed with witnesses, which tends to reduce the risk of improper influence, particularly where the testator appears to have acted with independence and where there is no credible evidence of coercion or misrepresentation.
The court also dealt with the “presumption of testamentary capacity to operate” and the related framework for suspicious circumstances. In general terms, the presumption operates in favour of validity, and the challenger must show evidence sufficient to displace it. Here, the court found that the plaintiff did not meet that threshold. The court’s reasoning suggests that the plaintiff’s claims did not rise to the level of substantiated proof that the deceased’s free will was overborne.
Finally, the court considered the defendant’s counterclaim. The defendant sought declarations and probate, as well as an order for the plaintiff to provide an account of property allegedly seized. The court granted the counterclaim “in terms,” reflecting that it accepted the 2020 Will as valid and that it was appropriate to require an accounting from the plaintiff regarding assets in dispute.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim challenging the 2020 Will. It found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding suspicious circumstances, misrepresentation, and undue influence were unsubstantiated. The court therefore upheld the validity of the 2020 Will.
In granting the defendant’s counterclaim, the court made orders consistent with a declaration that the 2020 Will was the deceased’s true and last will and that probate should be granted to the defendant. The court also ordered the plaintiff to provide an account of property allegedly seized, thereby addressing the practical administration issues arising from the dispute.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it illustrates the evidential burden faced by challengers in will validity disputes. Even where a will’s provisions appear unusual or where there are interpersonal tensions among family members, the court will not invalidate a will on speculation. The court’s repeated emphasis that the plaintiff’s allegations were “bare allegations” underscores that challengers must marshal credible evidence—such as witness testimony, contemporaneous documents, or other reliable proof—rather than rely on inference alone.
The case also reinforces the practical importance of solicitor-led execution and formalities. Where a will is prepared by solicitors, explained appropriately, and executed with witnesses, courts are generally more confident that the testator understood the nature and effect of the will and assented to its contents. While formalities do not automatically cure all defects, they are a strong contextual factor when assessing knowledge and approval and allegations of undue influence.
For family law and probate practitioners, the decision is also a reminder that medical history, such as a prior stroke, will not necessarily defeat testamentary capacity. Courts will look at the medical evidence and the testator’s functioning in daily life, including evidence of independent decision-making and management of affairs. Here, the court’s reliance on medical reports and the deceased’s continued activities demonstrates a fact-sensitive approach.
Legislation Referenced
- Housing and Development Board Act 1959
- Wills Act 1838
- Probate and Administration Act 1934
Cases Cited
- [2010] SGCA 27
- [2016] SGCA 24
- [2019] SGHCF 2
- [2019] SGHCF 2
- [2025] SGFC 128
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGFC 128 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.