Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Suspicious circumstances

Legal area

Court

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.
20 Jan 2025

TEOH YING RIN SAVATERY A/P JAYARAMAN

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-262-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-262-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellate court held the propounder dispelled the suspicious circumstances by producing contemporaneous letters and other evidence demonstrating the testator knew and approved the contents of the impugned will; the High Court erred in conflating testamentary capacity with knowledge/approval and in placing undue weight on non-production of prior wills; the High Court order invalidating the will was set aside.
10 Sept 2024

1. ) KONG KIN LAY 2. ) KONG LAN SU 3. ) KONG LAN KIAT 4. ) KONG KIN HOCK 5. ) KONG LAN HO 6. ) KONG LUM FONG 7. ) Kong Lan Lee 1. ) KONG KIN SIONG 2. ) KONG LAN CHOON 3. ) KONG KIEN TOON

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-290-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-290-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed: on balance of probabilities the will of 10.5.2014 was invalid because (a) there was a real doubt as to the deceased’s testamentary capacity due to advanced age and medical evidence; (b) the two attesting witnesses (particularly SD1) were unreliable and material contemporaneous records were not produced; (c) suspicious circumstances and evidence of control/undue influence were established and respondents suppressed material medical evidence; and (d) in the circumstances the Golden Rule ought to have been followed; accordingly probate was revoked and the estate declared intestat…
5 Feb 2024

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)

Application to intervene was allowed: where the Statement of Claim contains serious allegations that directly impugn an individual's professional reputation and expose them to potential liabilities or disciplinary consequences, the court may exercise its discretion under Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) to add that person as a defendant even though no relief is claimed against them, to enable them to defend their reputation and address potential liabilities and to ensure all affected parties are before the court.
18 Jan 2023

SAVATERY A/P JAYARAMAN TEOH YING RIN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-167-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-167-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Defendant prepared the 2019 Will, was a substantial beneficiary, gave inconsistent accounts about prior wills and failed to produce or account for earlier wills or otherwise dispel the resulting suspicious circumstances, the propounder failed to satisfy the court's judicial conscience that the instrument represented the Testator's true will; therefore the 2019 Will was set aside and intestacy declared.
31 May 2022

1. ) Maruthaveeran A/l Muruvan @ Murugan 2. ) Gunaselan A/l Suppiah 3. ) THEIVANI A/P MARUTHAMUTHU 4. ) AMANI A/P MARUTHAMUTHU 5. ) MAIAVALHANAN A/L MARUTHAMUTHU 6. ) PARAMASWARY A/P MARUTHAMUTHU PUKAZENDIRAN A/L MARUTHAMUTHU

Citation

BA-22NCvC-206-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-206-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the defendant established the will was validly executed with testamentary capacity and without undue influence; plaintiffs failed to prove suspicious circumstances and failed to comply with mandatory Order 72 procedures to challenge the probate; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim failed and probate stands.
25 Nov 2021

XXXX XXXX

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-221-02/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-221-02/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the trial judge’s credibility findings (accepting the solicitor witness as credible) and factual conclusions were rational and not plainly wrong; the propounders failed to adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the original will was destroyed or to dispel relevant suspicious circumstances; compliance with formal execution was proven by the credible attesting witness under s.68 Evidence Act such that calling the second attesting witness was not mandatory where the one witness proved execution; allegations of undue influence and lac…
19 Dec 2019

TAN KAY SOON (NO. K/P: 600620-01-5975) [dalam kapasiti sebagai anak lelaki, waris/ benefisiari dan salah seorang wasi ('executor') bagi Harta Pusaka Lo Lek Tuan (No.K/P: 360905-01-5688), si mati yang di namakan di dalam wasiat bertulis yang

Citation

JA-22NCVC-203-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-203-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to discharge the burden to prove that the Testator validly executed the Purported Second Will (thumbprint unproven), lacked cogent evidence of testamentary capacity at the time, and did not dispel multiple suspicious circumstances; accordingly the Purported Second Will is invalid and the First Will stands, probate to be granted to the Plaintiff.
SETHAMBAL D/O DORAIAPPAH V KRISHNAVANI A/P MUNIANDY

Citation

SETHAMBAL D/O DORAIAPPAH V KRISHNAVANI A/P MUNIANDY
Court

Malaysian court

The Court of Appeal held that although the trial judge correctly applied the legal burden on the propounders to prove testamentary capacity and to dispel suspicious circumstances, he erred in concluding the propounders failed to do so because he failed to consider material evidence (notably the solicitor's unchallenged evidence and the explanation that the mother paid the house deposit) and over-relied on a late medical report; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for retrial on the issues of suspicious circumstances and testamentary capacity.