[2024] SGCA 4, ACF & Anor v AKI & 2 Ors - Judgment, Outcome & Holding

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	14 February 2024
Judges	Andrew Phang Boon Leong, Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim	Mental Disorders and Treatment
Outcome	Application dismissed
Counsel	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Tan Kok Quan Partnership, Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping, Poh Yee Shing, Teo Su Ning Gillian, Zhu Ming-Ren Wilson

Source: [2024] SGCA 4, Court of Appeal, decided 14 February 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Mental Disorders and Treatment — Management of patients' property and affairs

Practice Areas

Mental Disorders and Treatment

Judges (3)

Andrew Phang Boon Leong Coram Belinda Ang Saw Ean Delivered Sundaresh Menon Coram

Counsel (7)

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Shook Lin & Bok LLP Firm Tan Kok Quan Partnership Firm Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping Counsel Applicant Poh Yee Shing Counsel Appellant Teo Su Ning Gillian Counsel Applicant Zhu Ming-Ren Wilson Counsel Respondent

Parties (5)

AI Respondent AUR Appellant AUT Respondent BKR Respondent CY Appellant

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

14 February 2024

Case summary

Re Estate of BKR, deceased [2024] SGCA 4

Civil Appeal No 27 of 2014 (Summons No 36 of 2023)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean):

Outcome: COA holds that the court has no jurisdiction to confer any powers or authority upon a deputy following the demise of the mentally incapacitated person.

Background

1 The applicants were deputies (the “Deputies”) who had been appointed by the Court of Appeal to make decisions on behalf of one BKR in relation to her property and affairs because she lacked the mental capacity to make decisions these herself. An independent legal adviser (“ILA”) to the Deputies had also been appointed. The Deputies and ILA were to be paid out of the assets of BKR.

2 After BKR passed away, the Deputies applied to the court seeking a discharge of the appointments of themselves and the ILA. The Deputies also sought orders that they continued to be entitled to reasonable remuneration for their work and continued to be authorised to pay the ILA’s fees and disbursements out of BKR’s property.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

3 The Court of Appeal held that the Mental Capacity Act 2008 (2020 Rev Ed) (“MCA”) was designed to assist incapacitated persons in their lifetime. The MCA had no functional role after the death of the person concerned: at [5]–[7].

4 While the court continued to possess a limited residual jurisdiction after the person’s death to conclude or end the court’s involvement in the person’s affairs, this did not extend to conferring any new powers or authority upon a deputy: at [9]–[11].

5 Therefore, the Court of Appeal discharged the appointments of the Deputies and ILA but held that it was not within the court’s powers to grant the orders for continued remuneration and authorisation sought by the Deputies. It was for the executors of BKR’s estate to determine these payments: at [13]–[16].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

What did the deputies seek in Re Estate of BKR [2024] SGCA 4?

After BKR died on 25 May 2023, the deputies filed CA/SUM 36/2023 seeking discharge of their appointments and that of the independent legal advisor, and continued authority to approve payment of the advisor's fees from BKR's property, the subject of management for a mentally incapacitated person.