SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 MarsdenLR 313

HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
ONG SEOK FONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
NG TONG LAI & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JB-22NCVC-44-07-2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Arunasalam Velu,Visalakshi Suparamaniam ,Respondent Advocate: Loi Kwang Fou,Kenny Yong Ken Yit

A Power of Attorney is invalid if executed when the donor lacks the capacity to understand its terms and implications.

Headnote:(A) Powers of Attorney Act 1949 – Section 3 – Validity of Power of Attorney – The court declared the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2016 null and void, ruling it was executed when the Deceased was not coherent and lacked understanding due to medical condition. (Paras 68, 70) (B) Evidence Act 1950 – Section 85 – Presumption regarding powers of attorney – The presumption of validity for a power of attorney requires all conditions for its execution to be met; otherwise, it remains rebuttable. (Paras 47, 49)

Facts of the case: The plaintiffs challenged the validity of a Power of Attorney purportedly signed by their father Ong Chin Wong, who was reportedly unwell and unable to understand the implications of the document when executed. (Paras 1-12)

Findings of Court: The court found the Power of Attorney invalid due to lack of understanding by the Deceased during execution, impacting the authenticity of the document. The evidence from medical experts outweighed the opposing testimony. (Paras 50-67)

Issues: The primary issues were whether the Power of Attorney was executed according to the law, the donor's understanding when executing it, and the preparation of the document itself. (Paras 25-27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a Power of Attorney to be valid, the donor must comprehend its content, which was not substantiated in this instance as the Deceased was incapacitated on the relevant date. (Paras 30-66)

Result: Declarations made as requested by plaintiffs, Power of Attorney declared null and void.

JUDGMENT

Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud JC:

Introduction

[1] The Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim were filed by the plaintiffs seeking for the following reliefs:

i. A declaration that the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2016 purportedly granted by the late Ong Chin Wong whose address during his lifetime was No 16 Kampung Maju, 86600 Paloh, Johor on a property that is held under the Title HS(D) 63127 PTD 1925 Paloh Sub District as null and void and is of no effect upon the demise of the late Ong Chin Wong.

ii. A Declaration that the purported signature of the late Ong Chin Wong as found on the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2016 is a forgery and hence the purported Power of Attorney is null, void and is of no effect.

iii. A Declaration that the registration of the 1st defendant as the registered owner of the property that is held under the Title HS(D) 63127 PTD 1925 that is measured 845 square meters in the Paloh Sub District, District of Kluang in the State of Johor on 7 September 2017 by the 2nd defendant where the Document of Transfer of Title dated 21 August 2017 that was signed by the 1st defendant as the representative of the late Ong Chin Wong whose address during his lifetime was No 16 Kampung Maju, 86600 Paloh, Johor as the donor of the transfer is null and void and is of no effect because the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2016 has lapsed and void and has no effect with the death of the late Ong Chin Wong on 11 June 2017 and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2016 given to the 1st defendant by the late Ong Chin Wong was without valuable consideration.

iv. A Declaration that the property that is held under the Title HS(D) 63127 PTD 1925 that is measured 845 square meters in the Paloh Sub District, District of Kluang in the State of Johor is part of the estate of the late Ong Chin Wong for the benefit of all beneficiaries ie the plaintiffs.

v. The 2nd defendant is directed, pursuant to s 417 National Land Code , to take all necessary actions to give effect to the above declarations.

vi. General Damages to be borne by the 1st defendant.

vii. Interest and cost to be borne by the 1st defendant.

viii. Other reliefs or incidentals.

[2] The plaintiffs have called seven witnesses during the trial of this case.

[3] The following witnesses had been called:

PW1 - Dr Lai Nai Lang

PW2 - Ong Ban Ling

PW3 - Ong Tar Foo

PW4 - Ong Chee Kiong

PW5 - Nurul Aisyah Binti Mohamadon

PW6 - Ong Seok Fong

PW7 - Ong Seok Kian

[4] While the 1st defendant called three witnesses who are:

DW1 - the 1st defendant

DW2 - a solicitor who is practising law at the firm that goes by the name and style of Messrs MN Halim Syaffie & Associates

DW3 - a staff of DW2

The Background Facts

[5] The 1st defendant has the address for service at No 16 Kampung Maju, 86600 Paloh, Johor.

[6] At all material times, the lawful biological father of the plaintiffs, ie the late Ong Chin Wong ("the Deceased") owned a property that is held under the Title HS(D) 63127 PTD 1925 that is measured 845 square meters in the Paloh Sub District, District of Kluang in the State of Johor ("the said property"). A residence was built on the said property and the 1st defendant stayed at the residence.

[7] The late Ong Chin Wong ("the Deceased") died on 11 June 2017 and left, among others, the said property as part of his estate. On 7 September 2017, the 1st defendant surrendered the Document of Transfer of Title of the said property, dated 21 August 2017, at the 2nd defendant's office which then registered the 1st defendant, as the registered owner of the said property.

[8] Upon a search conducted by the solicitors for the plaintiffs, it was discovered that:

a. The Deceased had purportedly appointed the 1st defendant as his representative vide an Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2016.

b. The powers conferred by the said Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2016 include the power to deal with the said property.

c. The said Irrevocable Power

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top