The court has discretion under the Mental Health Act 2001 to order an inquiry into a person's mental capacity, requiring the applicant to establish a prima facie case of mental disorder.

JUDGMENT

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] This judgment brings to fore the issue of when the Court should exercise its discretion under the Mental Health Act 2001 (hereinafter referred to as " MHA 2001") to make an Order directing an inquiry to determine whether a person alleged to be mentally disordered is incapable of managing their affairs due to such mental disorder.

[2] The Applicant commenced these legal proceedings against the Respondents via this Originating Summons, seeking an order directing an inquiry to be conducted to determine whether his mother ie the 1st Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "R1") who he alleges to be mentally disordered and incapable of managing herself and her affairs due to such mental disorder and for the appointment of the Applicant and one of the Respondents as well as two solicitors as a committee under ss 52 to 75 of the Mental Health Act 2001 (hereinafter referred to as " MHA 2001").

[3] Having heard parties submit with the aid of their written submissions and having considered the evidence presented, I had ordered an inquiry to be conducted by an independent psychiatrist (who can converse in Hokkien or with the presence of a nurse who is proficient in that language) to determine whether R1 is mentally disordered and is incapable of managing herself and her affairs due to such mental disorder.

[4] Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Respondents have since filed a notice of appeal. I will hereinbelow set out the salient background facts, the parties' respective contentions and my analysis of the same in arriving at my decision.

Salient Background Facts

[5] The salient background facts that can be gleaned from the affidavits filed are summarised as follows.

[6] The Applicant, R2, R3 and R4 are biological brothers and sons of R1, Madam Ong Siew Harand the late father Yeap Ng Cheng Guan. R1 and her husband, the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan are the founder of a company named Heap Lee Chan Trading Company Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the said company"). Both the founders and the four brothers were/are directors and shareholders of the said company. The Applicant was removed as a director in 2022 but remains a shareholder of the said company to date.

[7] The late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan and R1 indulged in several raw food production businesses including shrimp paste-related products before they founded the family business of Heap Lee Chan Trading partnership with one family close friend, Choon Wee Hin, R2 and the Applicant back in 1977 featuring raw food products export and imports.

[8] The business evolved into a complete family company under the efforts of the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan, the Applicant and R2 as the elder sons of the family and later joined by R3 and R4 respectively.

[9] It is the Applicant's case that when the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan's health deteriorated sometime in 2021, R2 to R4 removed the Applicant as a director of the main family company in a mala fide manner and/or through undue influence towards the late Ng Cheng Guan.

[10] It is also the Applicant's case that R2 to R4 caused the transfer of the shares of the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan and R1 in the main family company to themselves at the time the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan was admitted to the ICU, a month before his untimely demise despite the intention of the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan to have all four brothers inherit the companies in equal shares.

[11] Upon the demise of the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan, the Applicant and R2 to R4 commenced legal proceedings on several issues relating to the company and in December 2023, the Applicant commenced a civil suit against the Respondents and others vide Civil Suit No: PA-22NCVC-192-12/2023 (hereinafter referred to as "Suit 192") claiming inter alia that his removal as a director of the said company as well as the failure to distribute the shares belonging to the late Yeap Ng Cheng Guan and R1 constitute mala fide, misrepresentation, wrong conduct, breach of trust, misrepresentation