Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • The Firm
  • Our People
    • Our Partners
    • Our Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 17 of 2019

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 17 of 2019
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 17 of 2019

    By jhjadmin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 18 September, 2019 | 0

    Whether a will was invalidated on account of suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will?

    Case:

    TOB WENG KEONG & ANOR V TOB CHEE HOONG [2019] 1 LNS 545

    Brief Facts:

    • The testator [person making a will] (“Grandfather”) had 3 sons – Tob Chee Mun (“Mun”), Tob Chee Choong (“Choong”) and Tob Chee Hoong (“Hoong”).

     

    • Choong’s children, Tob Weng Keong (“Keong”), Tob Weng Kin (“Kin”) and a daughter have always lived with Grandfather, their grandmother together with Mun’s wife and daughter up to the Grandfather’s demise.

     

    • Before the Grandfather’s demise, he was admitted to Institut Jantung Negara for an operation.

     

    • During the period he was in hospital he made a will under which Keong and Kin were appointed as the executors and beneficiaries under the will (“Executors”). The will in question was prepared by the family’s lawyer.

     

    • Clause 2 of the will gave the Executors “all my movable and immovable future assets”.

     

    • After the Grandfather’s demise, the Executors filed an action at the High Court for a declaration that clause 2 under the will included current assets and for probate to be granted to them.

     

    • Hoong, the third son of the Grandfather challenged the validity of the will on the ground that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will and disputed the Executors’ claim for the declaration sought.

     

    • After a full trial, the High Court dismissed the Executors’ action and found that (i) the will is not valid as there were suspicious circumstances in its execution and (ii) Clause 2 of the will referred to future assets and did not bear the meaning ascribed to it by the Executors.

     

    • The Executors appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART!

    The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, by finding that the Executors had dispelled the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will as the findings of fact in the High Court clearly showed that the Grandfather had knowledge and approved the contents of the will. However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that Clause 2 of the will referred to future assets and did not bear the meaning ascribed to it by the Executors.

    No tags.

    jhjadmin

    More posts by jhjadmin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 22 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) came into force on 15 April 2014. Can a contract entered before 15 April 2014 be referred for adjudication under CIPAA? Case: JACK-IN PILE (M) SDNRead more

    • Legal Update 21 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      An employee was downgraded after a Domestic Inquiry and she then claimed Constructive Dismissal. Can she? Case: SUNWAY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE V MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR [2019] 1 LNS 292 Brief Facts: Sherly George (“Employee”)Read more

    • Legal Update 20 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can a child born out of lawful wedlock in Malaysia to a Malaysian citizen father and a non-citizen mother, the marriage of which was subsequently legitimised by virtue of the parents’ marriage, be a MalaysianRead more

    • Legal Update 19 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Does a slimming centre owe a duty of care towards its customers? Case: THENE ARULMANI CHELVI ARUMUGAM V LONDON WEIGHT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD [2019] 1 LNS 1185 Brief Facts: Thene Arulmani Chelvi a/p Arumugam (“Thene”)Read more

    • Legal Update 18 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      What is the power of the Tribunal for homebuyers’ claim and what is the date for calculating liquidated ascertained damages for late delivery of vacant possession of a property? Case: GJH AVENUE SDN BHD VRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can a claim for payment be made after the termination of a construction contract? Case: MARTEGO SDN BHD V ARKITEK MEOR & CHEW SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL [2019] 1 LNS 1067 Brief Facts: MartegoRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can the Bar Council intervene and pursue a complaint against a lawyer if the complainant has withdrawn the complaint? Case: MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA V LIM YIN YIN [2019] 4 MLRA 39 Brief Facts: The DisciplinaryRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2019

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can a husband make a claim on a property purchased before his marriage? Case: BALAKRISHNAN KALIAPPAN V SHAMEENA NATHESAN [2019] 1 LNS 363 Brief Facts: Shameena Nathesan (“Wife”) had filed for a divorce from BalakrishnanRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • JHJ Coffee Corner- Prejudices and Opportunities surrounding people living with HIV

      In conjunction with JHJ’s 20th Anniversary, we …

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory

      JHJ had the pleasure of meeting one …

    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

      It is the last month of the …

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2019
    • Legal Update 21 of 2019
    • Legal Update 20 of 2019
    • Legal Update 19 of 2019
    • Legal Update 18 of 2019
    • Legal Update 17 of 2019
    • Legal Update 16 of 2019

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2019

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2018

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 Contact Us Like & Follow Us On Facebook Follow Us On Instagram Follow Us On LinkedIn Disclaimer Privacy Policy
    • 20th Anniversary
    • Articles
    • Disclaimer
    • Home
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Legal Updates
    • Nature Of Practice
    • News & Bulletin
    • Our Associates
    • Our Partners
      • Adrian Thambyrajah
      • Jayadeep Bhanudevan
      • Siti Aminah Md Hanafi
    • Privacy Policy
    • The Firm
    • We Care
    • Our People
    • Practice Areas
      • Banking & Finance
      • Building & Construction
      • Commerce & Trading
      • Corporate & Commercial
      • Dispute resolution, Arbitration & Mediation
      • Education
      • Energy, Oil & Gas
      • Healthcare
      • Information & Communication Technology
      • Insurance & Takaful
      • Labour & Employment
      • Mining & Quarrying
      • Real Estate
      • Telecommunications
      • Transportation & Logistics
    • Publications
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
      • Ipoh
      • Kota Bharu
      • Melaka
      • Petaling Jaya
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil