XAT v XAU and another

The appellant, a Chinese national in Singapore on a Long-Term Visit Pass to accompany her studying daughter, became the deceased's tenant in 2011 and married him on 16 October 2013. He died on 2 September 2015. His will dated 17 August 2015, signed in Tan Tock Seng Hospital five days after an operation to amputate his left forefoot, left nothing to the appellant and stated that he had married her only to help her extend her stay and that the marriage was not consummated. The residuary estate went to his half-sister, the second respondent, and his nephew, the first respondent, was named executor and obtained probate on 26 January 2016.

According to a family friend, L, the deceased told him in hospital that the marriage was a sham and asked him to prepare the will; a relative interpreted it in Mandarin before two witnesses watched the deceased sign. In 2014 the couple had been interviewed by a Chinese newspaper, and afterwards the appellant paid the deceased monthly sums under receipts that also recorded her duties to care for him. The appellant sued in the District Court to invalidate the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, forgery and undue influence. The original will was later lost, and a forensic examination of a certified copy was inconclusive. The District Judge dismissed her claim, and she appealed in District Court Appeal No 22 of 2024.

1. Whether the deceased had testamentary capacity and knew and approved the contents of the will signed five days after major surgery.
2. Whether the will was irrational on its face in excluding the appellant.
3. Whether the appellant proved that the will was forged or procured by undue influence.

The court agreed with the appellant that, because the will was signed soon after the amputation, it was not executed in ordinary circumstances, so capacity and knowledge and approval could not be presumed and the burden lay on the respondents. The hospital's medical report had limits: its author had not treated the deceased, and the consent forms for surgery did not prove testamentary capacity. Still, the records showed him alert and oriented on the day of the will, and the five witnesses who said he was lucid had nothing to gain, as the beneficiary was not directly related to them. The District Judge's finding of capacity was not plainly wrong.

The newspaper articles were inadmissible hearsay, but the burden was on the appellant to show the will was irrational. She did not show that she had no reason to marry to extend her stay, nor produce evidence that the marriage was genuine after the wedding. The receipts were neutral.

On forgery, the loss of the original was strange, but the first respondent's explanation was not unreasonable for a layperson, and the inconclusive forensic report did not prove forgery. There was no evidence of undue influence beyond bare allegations.

The court expressed misgivings: the respondents' conduct had a cloak of furtiveness, a doctor ought to have witnessed or certified a will made after major surgery in a hospital, and professional help ought to have been sought. But the evidence did not show the trial findings were plainly wrong.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the District Judge's decision upholding the will in place, and said it would hear the parties on costs if they could not agree.