Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Validity of wills

Legal area

Court

27 May 2025

1. ) THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY 2. ) TEOH SOO BENG 1. ) TEOH KIANG HONG 2. ) TAN SAI HONG 3. ) XXXX 4. ) SURUHANJAYA SYARIKAT MALAYSIA

Citation

22NCVC-83-02/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-83-02/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Guaman 83: The Federal Court's determination that the first plaintiff had executed the share sale agreement and the order for specific performance removed any reasonable cause of action for the plaintiffs; the second plaintiff's bankruptcy extinguished his capacity to sue; accordingly the writ and statement of claim were struck out. Guaman 80: The application to revive and substitute was dismissed because of significant unexplained delay, absence of an appointed executor or administrator, unresolved competing wills/probate proceedings affecting capacity, and the prospect that granting substit…
25 Apr 2025

1. ) CHAN T'SHIAO LI 2. ) KIMBERLEY CHAN TSHIAO MIIN 1. ) MALCOLM FERNANDEZ 2. ) CHAN MEI YEE PENCELAH 1. ) MARCUS CHAN JAU CHWEN 2. ) SATHARUBAN A/L SIVASUBRAMANIAM 3. ) LOW BENG CHOO 4. ) AKTIF LIFESTYLE CORPORATION BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-28-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-28-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Under section 135 Evidence Act and established authority, the order of calling witnesses is ordinarily left to the parties and the party who asserts and seeks to establish a fact bears the burden of proof; where a will is challenged, the challenger (Plaintiff) bears the evidential burden to prove invalidity and therefore must lead evidence first.
21 Mar 2025

DATO' RICHARD DILAAN MORAIS 1. ) RAAM KUMAR A/L M. SUPPIAH 2. ) CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF LOURDES, IPOH PENCELAH 1. ) TETUAN K.B. TAN KUMAR & PARTNERS (didakwa sebagai sebuah firma) 2. ) CHARLES SURESH MORAIS

Citation

AA-22NCvC-34-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-34-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment application was dismissed because the plaintiff knowingly omitted the 2015 will at the material time, the amendment was made in bad faith as a tactical manoeuvre after the defendants' strike‑out application, it would change the character of the suit and cause prejudice not compensable by costs; therefore the court exercised its discretion under established authority (Yamaha Motor and related cases) to refuse the amendment.
14 Aug 2024

BA-32NCVC-720-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-32NCVC-720-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-32NCVC-720-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Civil High Court must refuse to grant probate based on a Muslim deceased's will until the validity of that will is determined by the Syariah court; the Registrar lawfully may require production of Syariah confirmation under Order 71 r4 and the disputed will prepared outside the statutory Majlis scheme is not exempt from Syariah confirmation requirements, therefore the originating summons is dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY 2. ) TEOH SOO BENG 1. ) TEOH KIANG HONG 2. ) TAN SAI HONG 3. ) XXXX 4. ) SURUHANJAYA SYARIKAT MALAYSIA

1. ) CHAN T'SHIAO LI 2. ) KIMBERLEY CHAN TSHIAO MIIN 1. ) MALCOLM FERNANDEZ 2. ) CHAN MEI YEE PENCELAH 1. ) MARCUS CHAN JAU CHWEN 2. ) SATHARUBAN A/L SIVASUBRAMANIAM 3. ) LOW BENG CHOO 4. ) AKTIF LIFESTYLE CORPORATION BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN

DATO' RICHARD DILAAN MORAIS 1. ) RAAM KUMAR A/L M. SUPPIAH 2. ) CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF LOURDES, IPOH PENCELAH 1. ) TETUAN K.B. TAN KUMAR & PARTNERS (didakwa sebagai sebuah firma) 2. ) CHARLES SURESH MORAIS

BA-32NCVC-720-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)