KUALA LUMPUR (March 2): Two of the late Lim Siew Kim\u2019s children intensified their challenge over her RM1.6 billion will on Monday (March 2), as their counsel urged the High Court to strike out what he described as inadmissible \u201chearsay\u201d evidence central to the defence\u2019s case.<\/p>\n
Appearing for the plaintiffs, Datuk V Sithambaram applied to expunge at least eight portions of the written statement of the fourth defendant, lawyer Datuk Low Beng Choo, who not only prepared the disputed will but was also present during its execution.<\/p>\n
Sithambaram argued that parts of Low\u2019s testimony, particularly those recounting what Siew Kim allegedly said during the preparation and signing of the will, amount to hearsay and should therefore be expunged.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor hearsay evidence to be admissible under any exception, it must not be relied upon for its truth,\u201d he told the High Court. \u201cHere, the defence seeks to rely precisely on the truth of what the deceased purportedly said.\u201d<\/p>\n
The will in question belongs to the late Siew Kim, the third child of the deceased gaming mogul Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong. Her two daughters, Chan T\u2019shiao Li and Kimberly Chan T\u2019shiao Miin, filed the probate suit on Jan 19, 2023, challenging the validity of the will and questioning whether their mother possessed the requisite testamentary capacity at the time it was executed.<\/p>\n
Sithambaram argued on Monday that he was not objecting to Low\u2019s direct observations \u2014 such as her account that Siew Kim sat upright, appeared alert and signed each page of the will. Those, he conceded, fall within Section 60 of the Evidence Act, which allows witnesses to testify on what they personally saw or heard.<\/p>\n
However, the senior counsel drew a sharp distinction when it came to conversations between the deceased and the solicitor.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat the deceased told her is hearsay. I cannot cross-examine the deceased,\u201d he argued in court. \u201cThe will speaks for the deceased. You cannot now bring in what she allegedly said outside the will to corroborate it.\u201d<\/p>\n
He argued that allowing such evidence would prejudice the plaintiffs\u2019 case and could effectively determine the dispute at the outset.<\/p>\n
Sithambaram further contended that the commonly cited hearsay exception relating to state of mind does not apply, as the mental state of the witness \u2014 not the deceased \u2014 must be directly in issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fourth defendant\u2019s mental state is not directly in issue,\u201d he said, cautioning that misapplying the exception would undermine established evidentiary principles.<\/p>\n
The contested will was allegedly signed while Siew Kim was warded in a private hospital. The estate is estimated to be worth RM1.6 billion.<\/p>\n
Evidence is direct, not hearsay<\/p>\n
In response, Low\u2019s lawyers, S Sivaneindiren and James Khong, rejected the \u201ccharacterisation of the testimony\u201d as they argued that Low is entitled to testify on what she personally heard and saw \u2014 including instructions given to her by the deceased in her capacity as the drafting solicitor.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe evidence is not being offered to prove the truth of the deceased\u2019s statements,\u201d Sivaneindiren argued. \u201cIt is tendered to demonstrate that instructions were in fact given and to explain how those instructions influenced the solicitor\u2019s actions.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said the purpose of the evidence is to show that statements were made and that they shaped the drafting process and not just to prove the truth of the contents of those statements.<\/p>\n
Sivaneindiren further contended that excluding such evidence would make it impossible for the court to properly assess testamentary capacity and to dispel alleged \u201csuspicious circumstances\u201d surrounding the will.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis objection has never been taken in probate cases in this manner,\u201d he added, urging the court to either dismiss the application or, alternatively, defer any ruling on admissibility until the conclusion of the trial.<\/p>\n
If the objection is overruled, the defence sought for the costs of the application to be treated as \u201ccosts thrown away\u201d in any event.<\/p>\n
In this proceeding, the first defendant Malcolm Fernandes is represented by Rishwant Singh and Chia Eng Yi while the second defendant Chan Mei Yee is represented by Ong Kheng Leong and Ong Yu Jian. The third defendant, Marcus Chan \u2014 Siew Kim\u2019s only son \u2014 is represented by Datuk K Kirubakaran, Goik Kenwayne and Foong Kar Yee.<\/p>\n
The probate trial is also linked to a separate proceeding in which Marcus Chan is seeking to replace the current court-appointed officers managing the estate. He has nominated Victor Saw Seng Kee and Surendran Sathya Seelan of PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Sdn Bhd, or alternatively Lok Peng Chuan of KPMG Corporate Restructuring PLT, to assume the role.<\/p>\n
Both matters are being heard before High Court judge Mahazan Mat Taib at the High Court of Malaya.<\/p>\n
In brief remarks at the close of submissions, Mahazan said the issue engages both evidentiary principles and the court\u2019s broader duty in probate matters.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court will consider the submissions carefully,\u201d she said, before adjourning.<\/p>\n
The court fixed 11am on Tuesday for its ruling on whether the impugned portions of Low\u2019s testimony should be struck out. The trial is scheduled to continue on April 20 following the decision.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"KUALA LUMPUR (March 2): Two of the late Lim Siew Kim\u2019s children intensified their challenge over her RM1.6…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":309420,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[138,246,111,139,69,244,245],"class_list":["post-309419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-personal-finance","tag-business","tag-finance","tag-new-zealand","tag-newzealand","tag-nz","tag-personal-finance","tag-personalfinance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309419","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=309419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309419\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/309420"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=309419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=309419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=309419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}