1. ) MARK SAW KHAY LIANG 2. ) CHARMAINE SAW CHIN PUAY v ANDREW SAW KHAY CHI
Catchwords
1. This suit is about two Wills. The deceased testator (Father) wrote a Will in March 2014 (2014 Will). Under the 2014 Will, Father bequeathed (gave) the family home at No. 1 Jalan Scott, Penang, as well as his watches and jewellery to his younger daughter: the Second Plaintiff (Charmaine), and his residuary estate (the rest of his assets) to his wife (Mother). 2. But if Mother predeceased (died before) him, Father gave his residuary estate to his four children in equal shares. 3. The other three children are the First Plaintiff: the elder son (Mark), the Defendant: the younger son (Andrew), and the elder daughter: Samantha, who is not a party to this suit. 4. In this suit, the most pertinent asset is Father’s 20,000 shares in the family’s company: Tai Chuan Realty Sdn Bhd (Tai Chuan). These Tai Chuan shares are a part of Father’s residuary estate. 5. Under the 2014 Will, if Mother predeceased Father, then Father’s 20,000 shares in Tai Chuan would have been shared among the four children equally. Each of them would have inherited 5,000 shares. 6. Mother passed away in July 2014. 7. Later, in 2017, Father wrote another Will (2017 Will). The 2017 Will was different to the 2014 Will. Under the 2017 Will, the family home was still given to Charmaine. That has not changed. But the watches and jewellery were given to Mark and Andrew. 8. More importantly, Father’s 20,000 Tai Chuan shares were specifically given to Andrew only. This would make Andrew the single biggest shareholder in Tai Chuan among the siblings. 9. This change in Father’s Will is the subject of Mark’s and Charmaine’s grievance. 10. Mark and Charmaine sue Andrew— (1) to declare the 2017 Will invalid and to have it revoked; (2) to declare the 2014 Will valid and enforceable, and for probate to be given for it; (3) for damages. 11. Andrew counterclaims against them— (1) to declare that the 2017 Will revokes the 2014 Will; (2) for probate to be granted for the 2017 Will; (3) to remove Mark and Charmaine as executors of the 2017 Will. The three of them are co-executors. This prayer is no longer at issue, as it was dropped (withdrawn) at trial. (4) for Andrew to be appointed the sole executor under the Will (which it also dropped, and hence not at issue). 12. The question that will determine this suit is: Is the 2017 Will, Father’s valid and enforceable last Will?
Practice Areas
1. This suit is about two Wills. The deceased testator (Father) wrote a Will in March 2014 (2014 Will). Under the 2014 Will, Father bequeathed (gave) the family home at No. 1 Jalan Scott, Penang, as well as his watches and jewellery to his younger daughter: the Second Plaintiff (Charmaine), and his residuary estate (the rest of his assets) to his wife (Mother). 2. But if Mother predeceased (died before) him, Father gave his residuary estate to his four children in equal shares. 3. The other three children are the First Plaintiff: the elder son (Mark), the Defendant: the younger son (Andrew), and the elder daughter: Samantha, who is not a party to this suit. 4. In this suit, the most pertinent asset is Father’s 20,000 shares in the family’s company: Tai Chuan Realty Sdn Bhd (Tai Chuan). These Tai Chuan shares are a part of Father’s residuary estate. 5. Under the 2014 Will, if Mother predeceased Father, then Father’s 20,000 shares in Tai Chuan would have been shared among the four children equally. Each of them would have inherited 5,000 shares. 6. Mother passed away in July 2014. 7. Later, in 2017, Father wrote another Will (2017 Will). The 2017 Will was different to the 2014 Will. Under the 2017 Will, the family home was still given to Charmaine. That has not changed. But the watches and jewellery were given to Mark and Andrew. 8. More importantly, Father’s 20,000 Tai Chuan shares were specifically given to Andrew only. This would make Andrew the single biggest shareholder in Tai Chuan among the siblings. 9. This change in Father’s Will is the subject of Mark’s and Charmaine’s grievance. 10. Mark and Charmaine sue Andrew— (1) to declare the 2017 Will invalid and to have it revoked; (2) to declare the 2014 Will valid and enforceable, and for probate to be given for it; (3) for damages. 11. Andrew counterclaims against them— (1) to declare that the 2017 Will revokes the 2014 Will; (2) for probate to be granted for the 2017 Will; (3) to remove Mark and Charmaine as executors of the 2017 Will. The three of them are co-executors. This prayer is no longer at issue, as it was dropped (withdrawn) at trial. (4) for Andrew to be appointed the sole executor under the Will (which it also dropped, and hence not at issue). 12. The question that will determine this suit is: Is the 2017 Will, Father’s valid and enforceable last Will?
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) MARK SAW KHAY LIANG 2. ) CHARMAINE SAW CHIN PUAY v ANDREW SAW KHAY CHI is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 3, 2025 (citation: pa-22ncvc-60-03-2021). The case was decided by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James.
Key issues: 2. But if Mother predeceased (died before) him, Father gave his residuary estate to his four children in equal shares..
What was the outcome of 1. ) MARK SAW KHAY LIANG 2. ) CHARMAINE SAW CHIN PUAY v ANDREW SAW KHAY CHI?
1. ) MARK SAW KHAY LIANG 2. ) CHARMAINE SAW CHIN PUAY v ANDREW SAW KHAY CHI is a High Court decision dated November 3, 2025. The case was heard by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James. See the full judgment for details.