Andrew Heng v Dato' Heng Ji Keng (WA-24NCvC-3425-06/2026)

This is an application commenced by way of Originating Summons pursuant to sections 52, 54 and 58 of the Mental Health Act 2001 ("the Act").

The Plaintiff seeks, amongst others, a declaration that the Defendant is a person suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act and incapable of managing himself and his affairs, together with consequential orders appointing a S/N 9QmkyeQnEevu2LGUjGkiw Committee to manage the Defendant's personal welfare, estate and legal affairs.

Having considered the Originating Summons, the affidavits filed by the parties, the medical evidence, the written submissions and the authorities relied upon, this Court allowed the application.

These are the Grounds of Judgment.

The application concerns the present mental condition of the Defendant and his ability to manage his personal and financial affairs.

The Plaintiff relies principally upon the medical report prepared by Dr. Teo Jed Yeow dated 12 June 2026 together with the affidavits filed in support of the Originating Summons.

During the earlier hearing of this application, the Defendant did not enter appearance.

However, the Court did not immediately grant the application merely because there was no opposition.

Instead, recognising the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised under Part X of the Mental Health Act 2001, this Court directed the Plaintiff to file a Further Affidavit and further directed that the S/N 9QmkyeQnEevu2LGUjGkiw Defendant's immediate family members be notified of these proceedings so that they would have the opportunity to place before the Court any facts or objections which might assist the Court in arriving at a just decision.

Pursuant to those directions, a Further Affidavit was filed.

The Defendant's wife, Madam Chew Kim Eng, subsequently affirmed an Affidavit in Reply confirming that she resides with and personally cares for the Defendant on a daily basis.

She expressly confirmed the medical findings contained in Dr. Teo's report, affirmed that the Defendant is no longer capable of managing himself or his affairs, and supported both the application and the appointment of the proposed Committee.

No affidavit contradicting those facts was filed by any member of the Defendant's family.

The issues requiring determination are relatively narrow.

First, whether the Court is satisfied that the Defendant is a person suffering from a mental disorder and incapable of managing himself and his affairs within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2001.

Secondly, whether this Court ought to direct an inquiry under section 52 before making any substantive order.

Thirdly, whether it is appropriate to appoint the proposed Committee pursuant to section 58 of the Act.

Proceedings under Part X of the Mental Health Act 2001 are fundamentally different from ordinary civil proceedings.

They do not exist for the purpose of resolving disputes between competing litigants.

Rather, they invoke the Court's protective jurisdiction over a person who is alleged to be incapable of managing himself and his affairs by reason of mental disorder.

Orders made under the Act carry profound legal consequences.

Such orders affect the person's legal autonomy, his ability to deal with his property, his financial affairs and, in many cases, his personal welfare.

Accordingly, the Court cannot simply allow an application because it is uncontested.

Nor does the absence of opposition relieve the Court of its responsibility to satisfy itself independently that every statutory requirement has been fulfilled.

The Court remains under a continuing obligation to scrutinise the evidence carefully before making any declaration affecting the legal capacity of another person. E. WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN

The principal evidence relied upon by the Plaintiff is the medical report prepared by Dr. Teo Jed Yeow dated 12 June 2026.

The Court has carefully examined that report.

The report does not merely diagnose the Defendant as suffering from severe dementia.

More importantly, it addresses the very questions which the Court itself is required to determine under the Act.

Dr. Teo concludes, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the Defendant suffers from advanced cognitive impairment.

The report further concludes that the Defendant lacks the mental capacity to make decisions concerning his personal, medical and financial affairs.

The Defendant is further assessed to be incapable of managing, administering or safeguarding his property and affairs.

Dr. Teo further opines that the Defendant is unable to provide informed instructions to legal counsel or third parties and is not competent to provide evidence in legal or administrative proceedings.

Finally, the report recommends the appointment of a Committee under the Mental Health Act 2001.

The Court accepts those medical findings.

The Court does so not merely because they emanate from a qualified medical practitioner, but because the report is comprehensive, reasoned and directly addresses the statutory questions which the Court itself must determine.

The medical opinion is further corroborated by the evidence of the Defendant's wife.

Having daily care of the Defendant, she is in the best position to observe his present condition.

She expressly confirms that the Defendant is incapable of managing himself and his affairs.

She supports both the application and the appointment of the proposed Committee.

The Court attaches considerable weight to that evidence.

Significantly, there is no evidence before the Court contradicting either the medical findings or the factual evidence contained in the affidavits.

Having considered the totality of the evidence, this Court is satisfied that the Defendant is a person suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act and is incapable of managing himself and his affairs. F. WHETHER AN INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 52 IS

Section 52 reads: Section 52. Court may order inquiry.

The Court may, on an application made before it, make an order directing an inquiry to determine whether a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Court and alleged to be mentally disordered is incapable of managing himself and his affairs due to such mental disorder.

The order of the Court under subsection (1) may also contain directions for inquiries to be made concerning— S/N 9QmkyeQnEevu2LGUjGkiw

the nature of the property belonging to the person alleged to be mentally disordered;

the persons who are his relatives;

the period during which he has been mentally disordered; or

such other questions as the Court deems proper.

The application for such an inquiry may be made by a relative of the person alleged to be mentally disordered, or by any public officer nominated by the Minister for the purpose of making the application.

The Court has also considered whether an inquiry under section 52 ought to be directed before any substantive order is made.

In the Court's judgment, section 52 confers a discretionary power.

Parliament deliberately employs the word "may" rather than mandatory language.

Whether an inquiry should be directed depends upon the circumstances of each individual case.

The purpose of such an inquiry is not merely procedural.

Rather, it serves as a safeguard enabling the Court to satisfy itself that the statutory threshold has been met before making an S/N 9QmkyeQnEevu2LGUjGkiw order which significantly affects the legal rights and autonomy of the person concerned.

In the present case, this Court is satisfied that those protective considerations have already been fulfilled.

The Court did not immediately allow the application at the first hearing despite the Defendant's absence.

Instead, the Court directed the filing of a Further Affidavit.

The Court further directed that the Defendant's immediate family members be notified of these proceedings.

Those directions were intended to ensure that the Court had the benefit of independent evidence before exercising its jurisdiction.

Those directions have since been fully complied with.

The Court now has before it comprehensive medical evidence together with corroborative evidence from the Defendant's wife.

No contradictory evidence has been placed before the Court.

In those circumstances, the Court is satisfied that directing a formal inquiry under section 52 would not materially add to the evidential basis already available.

Nor would it further advance the protective purpose underlying the Act.

The Court therefore exercises its discretion not to direct a further inquiry.

Having found that the Defendant is incapable of managing himself and his affairs, the Court next considers whether a Committee ought to be appointed under section 58.

Section 58 reads: Section 58. Appointment of committees

If the Court finds that the person who is alleged to be mentally disordered is incapable of managing himself and his affairs due to his mental disorder, the Court may appoint a committee or committees of the person and of the estate of the person and may, as the Court deems fit, make an order—

as to the remuneration, if any, of the committee or committees out of the person's estate; or

as to the giving of security by the committee or committees.

Where the Court finds that the person alleged to be mentally disordered is incapable of managing his affairs due to his mental disorder but is not dangerous to himself or to others, the S/N 9QmkyeQnEevu2LGUjGkiw Court may appoint a committee of his estate without appointing a committee of his person.

The appointment of a Committee is intended to protect the welfare of the person concerned and to ensure the proper administration of his estate and legal affairs.

The Court has considered the identity of the proposed Committee.

The proposed appointment is expressly supported by the Defendant's wife.

No objection has been raised by any member of the Defendant's immediate family.

There is likewise no evidence suggesting that the proposed Committee would act contrary to the Defendant's interests.

The Court is therefore satisfied that the appointment sought is appropriate.

The Committee shall exercise its powers strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001.

The Committee remains under a continuing obligation to act at all times in the best interests of the Defendant. S/N 9QmkyeQnEevu2LGUjGkiw

Proceedings under Part X of the Mental Health Act 2001 invoke the Court's protective jurisdiction.

The Court's paramount concern is not the convenience of family members but the welfare, dignity, property and legal interests of the person alleged to be suffering from a mental disorder.

Having carefully scrutinised the medical evidence, the affidavits before the Court, the further evidence obtained pursuant to the Court's own directions and the absence of any contrary evidence, this Court is satisfied that the statutory requirements under the Mental Health Act 2001 have been established.

The Court is further satisfied that an inquiry under section 52 is unnecessary in the particular circumstances of this case and that the appointment of a Committee under section 58 is necessary for the proper protection of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Originating Summons is allowed.

The Court therefore makes the following orders:

The Defendant is declared to be a person suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2001 and incapable of managing himself and his affairs.

Andrew Heng and Heng Fu Joe are appointed as the Committee with the powers and responsibilities provided under the Mental Health Act 2001 and subject to the terms specified in the Originating Summons.

The appointment of the Committee is made solely for the purpose of safeguarding the Defendant's personal welfare, estate and legal affairs and shall at all times be exercised in the Defendant's best interests.

Prayers 6 and 7 of the Originating Summons are allowed. Dated: 22nd July 2026 …………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiff : Mark Ho Hing Kheong & Venkat Ram V. K. Dasaratharaj Messrs. Chellam Wong (Kuala Lumpur)