XVQ v XVR & Anor
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Cassandra Cheong |
| Charges / claim | Probate and Administration Act 1934 |
| Counsel | Skandan Law LLC, Bhaskaran S/O Sivasamy |
Source: [2025] SGFC 128, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
[2025] SGFC 128 explained
XVQ v XVR & Anor ([2025] SGFC 128) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 2 March 2026. It is categorised under Probate and Administration Act 1934. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2025] SGFC 128 about?
XVQ v XVR & Anor ([2025] SGFC 128) is a Family Court decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Probate and Administration Act 1934 — Validity of Will – Testamentary Capacity – Knowledge and Approval of Will — Undue Influence”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGFC 128 consider?
The judgment refers to Employment Act (Cap 91) and Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
This case involved a dispute between the youngest son of a deceased woman and her sister over the validity of a Will she executed in June 2020, under which a different son received the family HDB flat, the sister received most other assets and the residuary estate, and each son received $1.00. The Plaintiff alleged the deceased lacked testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval of the Will, and was subject to undue influence. The Family Justice Courts found undue influence not made out, dismissed the Plaintiff's claim, granted the Defendant's counterclaim declaring the Will valid, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay costs of S$74,892.29.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGFC 128)