The court found the impugned will invalid due to the deceased's lack of testamentary capacity and the appellant's undue influence.

Nallini Pathmanathan JCA:

Introduction

[1] This sole issue which arose for consideration in this appeal was the validity of a will dated 9 December 2008 ('the impugned will') made by the late Ho Teng Sett @ Aw Bing Guan ('the deceased').

[2] The plaintiff/respondent ('respondent') is the son of the deceased who contested the impugned will by filing a probate action in the High Court in Muar, maintaining that an earlier will executed by the deceased on 4 January 1999 ('the first will') was in fact the genuine and valid will of the deceased.

[3] The appellant in this appeal, who was the defendant in the Court below ('the appellant'), became the wife of the deceased in 2003. She was named the sole executrix and trustee and stands as the sole beneficiary under the impugned will dated 9 December 2008.

[4] In the Court below the learned trial judge concluded, after a full hearing of the matter, that the impugned will was invalid and had been created at the behest of and for the sole benefit of the appellant. On the application of the respondent, further orders were granted including an order that the marriage between the deceased and the appellant was void, and an ensuing order for damages against the appellant.

[5] On appeal before this Court, we concurred with the finding of the learned judge that the impugned will was invalid and dismissed the appeal in substance. The decision of the trial judge was therefore affirmed and upheld in relation to the declaration of the invalidity of the will.

[6] However, that part of the order of the High Court declaring the marriage between the deceased and the appellant as being void, was set aside, as was the grant of damages. This was because the probate action was not the correct forum for a declaration as to the validity of the marriage between the deceased and the appellant.

[7] In determining this appeal, it was evident that the issue of the validity of the will turned primarily on the factual matrix of the case. In this context, the learned trial judge was best positioned to determine and make the requisite findings of fact. From a perusal of the appeal records and having read and heard submissions from the learned counsel, there appeared to be no cogent basis for this Court to intervene in its appellate capacity. The findings of the learned trial judge were premised on the evidence available to him and could not be said to be implausible. Given the totality of the evidence on record, we were satisfied that there was no judicial misappreciation or evaluation of the evidence.

[8] We set out below our reasons for affirming the decision of the High Court.

Salient Background Facts

[9] Ho Teng Sett @ Aw Bing Guan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') passed away on 22 November 2009 at the age of 80. His first wife, Tang Gek Ying, who was the mother of his children, had predeceased him on 31 December 1983.

[10] The respondent, Aw Siew Keon, is one of the deceased person's childen. There are in total seven children of the deceased. The others who testified at the trial were a son, Aw Siew Boon (SP-7), and a daughter, Aw Pin Pin (SP-3).

[11] The deceased was the founder of Syarikat Tung Guan which operated as a manufacturer of copra and traded in coconut oil. Later that company grew to become Tung Guan Oil Mill Sdn Bhd and expanded its business to manufacturing palm kernels and trading in palm kernel oil.

[12] Tung Guan Oil Mill Sdn Bhd was a family business (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') which was incorporated in 1981. The deceased and his son Aw Siew Boon were the founding Directors and shareholders of the company. Subsequently in 1984, the respondent was appointed as another Director of the company.

[13] The respondent was responsible for the company machinery while his brother was a gen