We are now seeing cases of wills being digitally manipulated creeping into our Courts.
In Koh Ah Hwoi @ Kok Ah Hoi v Colum Aiwah McNamara & Anor, the plaintiff claimed that the deceased had executed another will in 2019 which superseded a 2008 will. The 2008 will had left his entire estate to the defendants and excluded his siblings, including the plaintiff. The original copy of the 2019 will could not be located.
The defendants’ expert noted that the 2019 will was a multi-generational reproduction (a copy of a copy). The deceased’s signature appeared to have been digitally reproduced (cut and pasted), with no evidence of it having been executed in wet ink. The signatures of the attesting witnesses were also printed, and the deceased’s signature was identical and nearly superimposable with a signature from a 2005 Sale and Purchase Agreement.
Instead of relying on the digital forensic evidence, the Court relied on the factual circumstances of the case and found the impugned will to be invalid. First, His Lordship found that one of the properties listed in the impugned will was never owned by the deceased. In fact, it was derived from a mistaken address provided by the first defendant.
Second, the bequest of the entirety of one property to the deceased’s sibling was doubtful, as the deceased only held a two-thirds share while one of the defendants already owned the remaining one-third.
Third, the bank account listed in the impugned will did not exist on the date of execution. It was only opened several months later.
The Court therefore did not need to rely on the expert evidence, as the contents of the will itself revealed its flaws. Perhaps will writers may now wish to consider video recording the testator when signing his or her will.
An earlier version of this case summary was published by Foong Cheng Leong on LinkedIn.
Leave a Reply