XUD v XUE

Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant are sisters; the plaintiff lives in the United Kingdom and the defendant in Singapore. Their eldest sister, P, lived in the UK for decades but, with her health failing, moved in June 2019 to her own apartment in Queenstown under the defendant's care, a move both sisters agreed. P was not disputed to have Parkinson's disease. In 2016 she had made UK lasting powers of attorney naming both sisters jointly. In Singapore she executed a lasting power of attorney (LPA) on 2 August 2021 naming the defendant as sole donee; the Office of the Public Guardian rejected it over an irregularity in her signature, and it was re-executed with her thumbprint on 10 January 2022. A March 2021 Singapore will named the defendant sole beneficiary of the apartment and of assets outside Singapore.

The sisters' relationship soured in 2021 over the handling of two UK properties P held with the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant blocked her access to P and mismanaged P's money and property. In FC/OSM 218/2024 she sought revocation of the LPA, claiming that P lacked mental capacity when she made it, that the defendant procured it by fraud or undue pressure, and that the defendant had not acted and would not act in P's best interests. The defendant denied all of this. Evidence came from P's neurologist, her psychiatrist (who issued the LPA certificate), a geriatrician, a UK solicitor, an estate agent and a forensic accountant engaged by the defendant.

Issues

1. Whether P had the mental capacity to make the LPA when it was executed.
2. Whether the defendant used fraud or undue pressure to induce P to make the LPA.
3. Whether the defendant had failed, or would fail, to act in P's best interests so that the LPA should be revoked.

Holding

The Family Court dismissed the plaintiff's application to revoke the LPA, finding that P had capacity, made the appointment freely, and that her interests had not been compromised; it declined to make findings on the validity of other documents such as the will. The plaintiff has appealed.

Reasoning

On capacity, the court applied the presumption of capacity and the functional and clinical test under the Mental Capacity Act 2008. It found no material conflict in the medical evidence. The neurologist recorded falling cognitive test scores and considered that P lacked capacity in 2023, but she had never assessed capacity and deferred to the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist had seen P several times before, reviewed her history and scores, and found her oriented, articulate, able to explain the difference between an LPA, a power of attorney and a will, and able to describe her assets; she reassessed P before the reissue and found her largely unchanged. Other evidence, including the plaintiff's own wish in late 2021 to activate the UK LPA while seeming to accept P still had capacity, and P's direct dealings with a UK solicitor, supported functional capacity.

On fraud or undue pressure, the court distinguished ULP v ULS and VKX v VKW, which involved long and bitter family feuds and egregious conduct. Here the sisters had been united until recently, P lived independently and could contact the plaintiff, and the psychiatrist's practice of seating relatives behind the patient let P speak freely. P had not mentioned the plaintiff to her doctor even in earlier sessions without the defendant, and there was no evidence of deception or excessive pressure.

On best interests, the forensic accountant's report showed no material concern; the plaintiff neither supplied more information nor called her own expert. P had herself insisted on sale prices for UK properties, and allegations about bank tokens and restricted access reflected tension between the sisters more than harm to P. Respect was due to P's choice of a Singapore-based donee, though the defendant remains accountable for P's money and welfare.

From the judgment