SINGAPORE – The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the Supreme Court's decision to find that he had deceived his wife in signing a confidential offense that would leave him abusive and their newborn son of a millionaire.
The property involved $ 25 million inheritance from her late mother who was killed in an unrelated incident almost a week before she signed the offense.
The man, identified in court documents as BOK, signed that document on March 26, 2014, while being isolated and grieving for the mother who was killed on March 19th.
"The work of trust is by no means fair, just and reasonable," Judge Andrew Phang's appeal was filed in Thursday (November 29th).
"Please note that the husband did not have any independent advice, and the work was obviously undervalued, both of which are hard-tempered to find incompetence," he added on behalf of five judges.
In the contract law, inconsistency describes conditions that are unfair.
Man was one of the most important means. Even before he started working, he had two suites at the Bay Sands Marine, which he inherited from his late father.
In the act he signed, the man secured all his property, including the potentially legacy of his mother's property, to keep him and his wife trusting for his son who was then two years old.
The document was signed in the presence of his father, senior lawyer.
But the couple's relationship was stone and a woman, a 38-year-old former lawyer, filed a divorce on November 25, 2015.
Five days later, BOK asked the High Court to reject the statement of confidence.
The High Court upheld the request last December, holding that BOK was "in a state of weakness at the time it signed a trust act."
The son of a son and a woman, represented by senior adviser Kenneth Tan and Suresh Damodar, then complained to the top of the court.
Senior Attorney Michael Hwang, who met lawyer Anthony Lee, appeared for BOK, now a 34-year-old director of energy companies.
The appeal court – consisting of Andrew Phang and Steven Chong, and Justices Belinda Ang, Chan Seng On and Quentin Loh – heard the parties in September 2018 and dismissed the appeal.
At a 89-page trial, the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court to stop trusting for misrepresentation, error, and unnecessary influence.
Lawyers argue that in the case of a five-judge court case, instead of the ordinary court of three judges, highlight one important issue about the law – the scope of incomprehension and its application.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the work should be separated because it was acquired by "unreasonable behavior".
But he also clearly showed what irresponsible behavior means when it comes to it.
This thing was raised earlier this year by the Singapore University Professor of Law Professor Tanga Hang Wu in an article at the Singapore Academy of Applied Law Review.
In a ruling on the Verdict of the Supreme Court of Valerie Theana on the verdict in the case, he argued that he must still see whether the case "signaled a more liberal approach to constructive incapacity or whether it was limited to its very unusual facts."
The judgment of the Appellate Court is clear – deciding whether to consider whether the prosecutor had been used when he was weakened.
She ruled "by a narrow doctrine of inability to apply in Singapore," saying that she will not only consider whether the injured prosecutor is poor and ignorant, but "includes the situations in which the plaintiff suffers from other forms of weakness", whether physical, mental, and / or emotional ".
The court added: "Our finding that the husband suffered from acute grief that hindered his ability to make decisions and made him susceptible to influence was of central importance.
"In our opinion, the deterioration of his mental condition was so much more difficult that it was the weakness his wife knew and exploited by exploiting his sense of isolation.
"Indeed, it will be recalled that the woman knew she was unable to do the will, and less confidence that immediately rescues all her property."
The Court explained that the act "is by no means a reasonable way of providing a son, especially when he takes into account the circumstances in which he was executed".
Appeal Judge Phang added, "We emphasize that the lack of independent advice and the characterization of transactions as subordinate values are not mandatory elements that will be met.
"However, as the case shows, the presence of these factors will often emphasize and emphasize the exploitation of a weakness that makes the transaction unchanged."