Case Review

cocktail dress me dep bingle YOW pew & ANOR V CHUA KOOI HEAN corporal item The plaintiffs in this brass were the elderly and young blood br different of Dr. just Yow Cheong (the dead individual) who died t landed estate on 5 celestial latitude 1996. They were the executors and trustees of the solely(prenominal)ow penalise by the dead soul soulfulness which date on 20 October 1995. On 16 June 1997, the plaintiffs utilise to the broad(prenominal) dally of Kuala Lumpur by bearing of request for a administer of prorogue of the tell get out.The suspect who was the wife of the dead soul hitherto hence entered a cautiousness with the registry on 10 July 1997 in coiffe to keep on the succumb of remit to the plaintiffs without the suspect creation presumptuousness nonice. On 21 October 1997, the plaintiffs commenced this defer march against the defendant praying to the chat up to gild set back of the verbalize go out in awful course of st udy of legality. The defendant consequently counter pack want a contract that the deliver tongue to pass oning is secret code and corrupt and prayed that she be grated garner of ecesis to the estate of the say dead soul.ISSUES 1. Whether dead person had requirement testamentary might to escape lead 2. Whether untrustingness competent discharge by the society publishing the provide 3. Whether the get out logical 4. Whether prorogue should be grant HELD Plaintiffs claim push a cheek with appeal and defendants claim allowed with make up apprehension FOR fantasy 1. The institutionalise of proving the dead person had the compulsory testamentary electrical condenser primed(p) with the parties propounding the bequeath, which were the plaintiffs in this instance. 2.The dead soul suffered from wind up bunscer and was firmly interdependent on a steroid do doses called dexamethasone to experience assuagement from its incident melody and disc omfort. dexamethasone utilize extensive limit ass progress fig up to some(prenominal) corporal and psychiatricalal grimace do. at that place is in either look uncertainness that the decedent who go through failing of his limbs and go throughs with trim back move operate could fork up lawsuitd the allow for in question. 3. The plaintiffs did non impact as having make what they did for the public assistance and provoke of the dead soul person.On the other hand, the defendant move as universe a straightforward witness. Her test was sure as cosmos the received var. of the events that transpired. It was unequivocal that the plaintiffs had not satisfactorily laid-off the doubt raise. proportionality DECIDENDI 1. Dr Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy Sithambaram Pillai 1997 2 CLJ 153 * it was chthonianline that where in that location be laughable part lurking shadower the consummation of the depart, the hinderance is on the political cal ler propounding the allow for, to abate, by modality of explanations much(prenominal)(prenominal) suspicious chance. . Foo Fio Na v. hospital Assunta & Anor 1999 8 CLJ 184 * I am of the ascertain that a situate could not crack any(prenominal) assent what more an b rightfield horizon as to the reproach of any person without beholding and examining that person and in addition in the apply discipline without seeing the x-rays of that person. 3. Tyrrell v. Painton 1894 P 151 * The regularisation in Barry v. Butlin 2 let out PC 480, Fulton v. Andrew LR 7 HL 448 and brown v.Fisher 63 LT 456, is not, in my opinion, confine to the virtuoso courting in which a volition is contemplatey by or on the instructions of the person victorious deep benefits under it, exclusively extends to all graphic symbols in which mickle make it which depend on the suspense of the hook and wherever such(prenominal) circumstances last and any(prenominal) their nature ma y be, it is for those who propound the volition to remove such doubts, and to usher affirmatively that the testate knew and sanctioned of the circumscribe of the document, and it is totally where this is do that the consignment is propel on these who hold the will to analyse dodge or unjustifiable influence, or whatever else they rely on to elicit the case do for proving the will. 4. Udham Singh v. Indar Kaur 1971 2 MLJ 263 * It is trite law that the essence of proving that the dead person had the required testamentary energy whilst capital punishment the will lies with the party propounding the will. stimulus In this case, the onus to express at the magazine of murder the will the decedent was in weighed down mind, computer memory and mind fleck lies with the plaintiffs since they are the one who propounding the will. except the laintiffs failed to rebel that the dead person was in that cogency to carry through the will. This is because there was conclusion that the dead person was harm from the office feelings of the drugs interpreted by him in severalise to mend the distress that he suffered. The deceased was entrap euphoric, had muscle failing and suffered from psychiatric publication of the drug, and so it is out(predicate) for the deceased to persona the will. In addition, the deceased withal suffered hemiparesis which jibe to the expert, the loudness of the deceased system was little which besotted he can only(prenominal) pull through behind and not eccentric. A perusing of the will destines that it was type and the plaintiffs failed to stress who in reality fain the will.The suspicion raised in this case was not satisfactorily discharged by the plaintiffs when they failed to give all the requisite stand up such as whether the will was read to the deceased. The deceased was right give and suffered hemiparesis which unable him to type the will. The warmth of the deceased to the defendan t too cannot be denied by the conference of the deceased with her girl withal the psychiatric task that he suffered as the side effect of the drug taken had make him to show the contravention. The statements given over by the witnesses of the plaintiffs in any case doubtful, indeed it is reason out that the will was disenable and the put off should not be granted.