TEOH YING RIN v SAVATERY A/P JAYARAMAN

Case Significance

Illustrates that an appellate court will reverse a will decision where the trial judge misdirected himself on whether suspicious circumstances surrounding the will were dispelled, and confirms that the burden of dispelling such circumstances by affirmative proof rests on the party propounding the will.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the validity of a will challenged on the grounds of the testator's knowledge and approval and suspicious circumstances surrounding its making. The testator had executed his last will and testament in April 2019 and died shortly afterwards, in June 2019. The will was contested, and after a trial the High Court ruled against the party propounding it. That party appealed. The central issue was whether the testator knew and approved the terms of the will, and in particular whether there were suspicious circumstances surrounding its making that, unless dispelled or removed by affirmative proof, would prevent the will from being admitted to probate; a related issue was whether the testator had been subject to undue influence in signing and making the will.

The Court of Appeal set out the governing framework: where suspicious circumstances attend the making of a will, the propounder must dispel them by affirmative proof before the court will pronounce for the will. Reviewing the evidence at the court below, and mindful that an appellate court will interfere only where the trial judge is plainly wrong or has failed to appreciate the evidence judicially, the court concluded that the trial judge had fallen into an error of law on the evidence relied on to dispel the suspicious circumstances and had lacked judicial appreciation of the facts presented. On that basis the appellate court considered it right to intervene.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order of January 2023, and ordered the respondent to pay costs of RM130,000 here and below, subject to allocator. The judgment illustrates the appellate court's willingness to reverse a will decision where the trial judge has misdirected himself on whether suspicious circumstances were dispelled, and it underscores that the burden of dispelling such circumstances rests firmly on the party propounding the will.