PRIVILEGED WILLS IN MALAYSIA: THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF PRIVILEGED WILLS AMONG SOLDIERS, AIRMEN AND SAILORS
Faridah Hussain,1 Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal,2 Akmal Hidayah Halim,3
Tajul Aris Ahmad Bustami4
1 Faculty of Law,
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Email: faridah355@salam.uitm.edu.my.
2 Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws,
International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Email: mkmhisham@iium.edu.my.
3 Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Email: akmalh@iium.edu.my.
4 Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws, International
Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Email: tajularis@iium.edu.my.
|
|
ABSTRACT |
Keywords: Sustainability; Privileged Wills; Soldiers; Airmen; Sailors. |
|
Privileged will is the right of soldiers and
airmen, and sailors, to dispose of their property during “actual military
service”, and “at sea”, respectively. The sustainability of this right leads
to economic prosperity and social justice. The objective of this paper is to examine the
sustainability of privileged wills as a model for combating poverty among
soldiers, airmen and sailors in Malaysia. Privileged wills appear to be
relevant and important as soldiers, airmen and sailors may dispose of their
properties during difficulties in obtaining advice and assistance to make a
formal will. Despite the
benefit, it is found that the legal provisions relating to privileged wills
are not applicable to Muslims and native soldiers and sailors, and that there
is no clear legal provision to guide Muslims and native soldiers and sailors
to make privileged wills. The
methodology employed in discussing this paper is a qualitative research using
doctrinal and comparative approach to the legal systems. This paper analyses legislations
governing privileged wills ranging from the Malaysian Wills Act 1959 (Act 346), the Sabah Wills Ordinance
(Sabah Cap. 158),
Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77) and the English Wills Act 1837. The study suggests that
the Government of Malaysia should support the idea to extend the provision of
law on privileged wills to Muslim and native soldiers and sailors. This is to
enable the society to earn and benefit from the property disposed of by
soldiers, airmen and sailors. Publisher All rights reserved. |
INTRODUCTION
Being a soldier, an airman or a sailor is the
first and most important condition for the right of making a privileged will to
be lawful. Everett Paul Griffin et al., points out that the phrase “soldiers’ and
sailors’ wills” applies to oral or unwitnessed will (Everett Paul Griffin et al., 1943). The informal wills which soldiers and sailors
are permitted to make are frequently called nuncupative wills, but they are not
necessarily oral (Thompson, 1936; E.B.M, 1946). In this regard, James
Schouler writes that soldiers and members of naval forces have special
privilege to dispose of their personal property, their wages, goods and
chattels, by mouth provided they are in actual military service and while
engaged in expedition (James Schouler, 1915). As a fighting man, they are seen
to have legal rights in regard to making their wills provided they are in
active service (St Amaud Mercury, Vic.: 1914-1918). As such, it seems to
suggest that any military serviceman who serves as soldiers, airmen or in navy
have personal special privilege right to make a will by way of privileged wills
as they protect the country for public interest.
W. Bowe et al, mention that the reasons justified for privileged class of
soldiers and mariners are the imminent dangers, diseases, disasters and the
possibility of sudden death constantly besetting soldiers and sailors, and the
inability of such persons to find the time or the means to make deliberate and
written testamentary dispositions of their effects (2 W. Bowe et al, Robert J Murphy 11, 1981). Thus,
it is fair and just to allow soldiers, airmen and sailors to make privileged
wills temporarily during difficult time.
In Malaysia, despite the benefit of having law
on privileged wills, it is found that there are problems surrounding the
application of law on privileged wills in Malaysia. The problems faced in the
practice of privileged wills in Malaysia is mainly on the inapplicability of
privileged wills to Muslim soldiers, airmen and sailors in West Malaysia and
the native in Sabah. Hence, this paper aims to analyse legal provisions
relating to privileged wills in Malaysia through the primary sources such as
Malaysian Wills Act 1959 (Act 346), the Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158),
Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77) and the English Wills Act 1837. Other secondary
sources referred to in this paper include decided cases, books, articles in
journals and internet sources. This paper also discusses the sustainability of
privileged wills as a model for combating poverty among soldiers, airmen and
sailors in Malaysia.
LEGAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO
PRIVILEGEDWILLS IN MALAYSIA
In Malaysia, according
to section 26(2) of the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346), privileged will means any
declaration or disposition, oral or in writing, made by or at the directions of
the testator which manifests the intentions of the testator which he desires to
be carried or to the guardianship, custody and tuition of a child or to the
exercise of a power of appointment.
According
to section 26(1) of the same Act, a member of the armed forces of Malaysia
being in actual military service, and a mariner or seaman (including a member
of the naval forces of Malaysia) being at sea may dispose of his property or of
the guardianship, custody and tuition of a child or may exercise a power of
appointment exercisable by will by a privileged will. In Malaysia, according to section 26(1) of
the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346), privileged will is the right of soldiers, airmen
and sailors to dispose of their property or the guardianship, custody and
tuition of a child or may exercise a power of appointment. In order for the
right to make a privileged will to be lawful, certain conditions are required
to be fulfilled; firstly, a member of the armed forces of Malaysia must be in
actual military service. Secondly, a mariner or seaman (including a member of
the naval forces of Malaysia) must be at sea.
The above provision clearly
allows a member of the armed forces of Malaysia being in actual military
service and a mariner or seaman (including a member of the naval forces of
Malaysia) being at sea to make a privileged wills. However, it is to be noted
that the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) is only applicable to the States of West
Malaysia only (see section 1(2) of the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346).
For Sabah, section 137 of the
State of Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158), provides that:
“Any soldier being employed in
an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged
or any mariner being at sea, may, if he has completed the age of twenty-one
years, dispose of his property by a will made in the manner provided in the
following section. Such wills are called privileged wills”.
A significant difference
between the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) and the State of Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158) is that, the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) allows soldiers, airmen and sailors who has
not attained the age of majority to make privileged wills. However, under the
State of Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158), only a soldier, an
airman and mariner who has completed the age of twenty-one years is allowed to dispose of his
property by a privileged wills.
Section 1(2) and (3) of the State of Sabah
Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158) provides:
(2) “Nothing in this Ordinance shall affect the validity of any will made by
any native or Muslim according to native law or custom or Islamic law as the
case may be”.
(3) “Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall enable any native to dispose
of his property by will in a manner contrary to any law or custom having the
force of law applicable to him at the time of his death”.
It seems to suggest that the Sabah Wills Ordinance exclude native and
Muslim soldiers, airmen and any mariners from making privileged wills. This
Ordinance is only applicable to non-Muslims and non-Native.
Further, section 138 of the State of Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158)
provides rules for
executing privileged wills in Sabah. Section 138 (1) of the State of Sabah
Wills Ordinance states on how a privileged wills can be made in Sabah.
Privileged wills may be in writing, or may be made by word or mouth.
Sub-section (2) of the section provides that: “(a) the
will may be written wholly by the testator with his own hand. In such case it
need not be signed or attested; (b) it may be written wholly or in part by
another person, and signed by the testator. In such case it need not be
attested; (c) if the instrument purporting to be a will is written wholly, or
in part by another person and is not signed by the testator, it shall be deemed
to be his will, if it is shown that it was written by the testator’s directions
or that he recognised it as his will; (d) if it appears on the face of the instrument that
execution of it in the manner intended by the testator was not complete, the
instrument shall not, by reason of that circumstance, be invalid, provided that
his non-execution of it can be reasonably ascribed to some cause other than the
abandonment of the testamentary intentions expressed in the instrument; (e) if
the soldier, airman or mariner has written instructions for the preparation of
his will, but had died before it could be prepared and executed, such
instructions shall be considered to constitute his will; (f) if the soldier,
airman or mariner has, in the presence of two witnesses, given verbal
instruction for the preparation of his will, and they have been reduced into
writing in his lifetime, but he has died before the instrument could be
prepared and executed, such instructions shall be considered to constitute his
will, although they may not have been reduced into writing in his presence nor
read over to him; (g) the soldier, airman or mariner may make a will by word of
mouth by declaring his intention before two witnesses present at the same time; (h) a will made by word of mouth shall be null at the expiration of one month
after the testator, being still alive, has ceased to be entitled to make a
privileged will”.
Comparatively, the Sabah Wills
Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158) provides rules in executing privileged wills whereas
the rules on executing privileged wills are not provided in the Wills Act 1959
(Act 346).
CONDITIONS FOR PRIVILEGED
WILLS
Since Julius Ceasar’s
time, soldiers are seen as excellent and faithful but inexperienced in drawing
up their wills. As such, the law permits them to draw up their wills in
whatever form they desire and they may exercise a power of appointment exercisable by
will by a privileged will. Further, it
is written that, in 1914, officers and men at that time serving with the
Expeditionary Force on the Continent possessed a privilege with regard to the
making of effective wills which was not possessed by any civilian. The person
entitled to the privilege is defined by the Wills Act of 1837 as any soldier in
actual military service. At this point of time, it is agreed that relaxing the
rules of will-making in favour of soldiers at the front, is a wise and just
discretion (Wills of soldiers on Active Service,
1914) 34 Can. L. Times 1162, 1169-1172).
The essential condition for
the exercise of making a privileged will is that soldiers must be “in actual
military service” and sailors, mariners or seamen (including a member of the
naval forces) must be “at sea”. This is derived from the principle of law in
many cases.
Actual Military Service
In Drummond v Parish [1843] 3 Curt 522. 7 Jur 538, 163 ER 812, Sir Herbert Jenner Fust decided that the words
“in actual military service” had the effect of confining the privilege
conferred by section 11 of the Wills Act, 1837 to soldiers of all ranks, who
were on expedition [1843-60] All ER Rep 100, 1 LTOS 207, 2 Notes
of Cases 318.
In the Estate of Spark [1941] 2 All ER 782, Hodson J pointed on the meaning of inops concilii. In this case he mentioned
that there were phrases in some of the old cases which laid emphasis on the
reason for the soldier’s privilege being given, the reason being that a soldier
in expedition or in actual military service, was usually inops
consilii. He pointed out in this case that if a soldier is inops
consilii, he had no opportunity of drawing up a will with the necessary
formalities. He also has no opportunity of obtaining legal advice. As such, he
was privileged by virtue of Wills Act 1837, s 11.
Similarly, in Re Wingham (deceased): Andrews and Another v Wingham
[1948] 2 All ER 908, Cohen LJ mentioned that the privilege conferred by
section 11 of the Wills Act, 1837 did not extend to regular soldiers of every description
at all times, but only to soldiers who were “in expedition”. He mentioned that
the courts had not given a narrow meaning to the words “in expedition” but had taken a broad view of the circumstances to justify treating a soldier as
being in expedition, and had had regard to the conditions of warfare from time to
time prevalent.
In this same appeal case, Denning LJ. rid the Roman test (The test of “can the soldier be considered
as having been regarded as in expedition?” should no longer be applied) and
decided that the proper test must be simple and certain to enable every soldier
to apply it without difficulty in the situation in which he found himself. The rule was that a soldier “in actual military service” was privileged to make a will without any formalities. As such, applying the
test above, it was held that the testator was in “actual military service”. In
this appeal case, Lord Denning LJ. in his judgment criticized the decision of
Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in the case of Drummond
v Parish (1843) (3 Curt, 531); 1 LTOS 207). He mentioned that this was the case which had given rise to all the trouble, for in it Sir Herbert
Jenner Fust fell into an error by deciding that General
Drummond was not in “actual military service” when he made a will in peace-time
while serving in Woolwich Barracks.
In the case of In the Goods of Hiscock [1900-03] All ER Rep 63, for a man to be “in actual
military service”, it is necessary, first, that there should exist a state of
war; and secondly, that the man should be for that purpose in some place where
otherwise he would not have been. As soon as he had done something under those orders,
actual military service might be said to have commenced. This is the test laid
down by Sir Francis Jeune.
The above principle was further supported by the case of Kitchen, Re
Kitchen v Allman (1919) 35 TLR 612 where it was decided that what constituted actual
military service was when the country was at war. As such, a soldier who has
been ordered to hold himself in readiness for service overseas can make a valid
soldier’s will under section 11 of the Wills Act 1837. These cases prove that
privileged wills is important to enable soldiers, airmen and members of naval
forces to dispose of their properties in just, expeditious and economical
manners even during difficult time.
In attempting to give a clear
view as to when a soldier may be said to be in actual military service, Lord
Merrivale P, in the case of Re Booth; Booth v Booth [1926] All ER Rep 594 (also reported [1926] P 118; 95 LJP 64; 135 LT 229; 42 TLR
454), considered if mobilization was the test. In this case, Col. Booth was mobilized. He and his regiment
were in course of making ready under orders to go on board a troopship for the
purpose of reaching the scene of operations. It was held that he was in actual
military service within the meaning of the phrase in the Wills Act as he
personally was involved actively in the military operations which were then in
progress. In this case, the plaintiff received a letter (which
enclosed what she described as his will) from her husband while she was in
England, and he was serving with the 46th Regiment (2nd
Battalion of the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry). In this letter, he wrote
to this effect: “I am just off to Egypt with the regiment and send my will,
with fond of love. Will write when I get to Egypt.” Enclosed with the letter was a document which termed, “I leave everything to my wife. I hope she will have regard to my sister
Mary”. That was signed by the testator and witnessed by a pay-sergeant, who was the paymaster of his regiment at that time in his office.
The case of Re Stable Dalrymple
v Campbell [1918-19] All ER 299 illustrates the best way in making
privileged wills. In this case, the deceased, while under orders to leave for
France, said to the plaintiff, in the presence of an independent witness: “If I
stop a bullet everything of mine will be yours.” The Probate, Divorce and
Admiralty Division’s Court held that the words used by the deceased were
deliberately intended to give expression to his wishes as to what should be
done with his property in the event of his death and constituted a valid
soldier’s will. Horridge J. pronounced for probate of the oral declaration as a
will.
In Malaysia, the term “actual
military service” can be seen in section 26(1) of the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346).
This provision does not contain the term “active service”. However, under
section 3(1) of the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77), the term “on active
service” is provided. In this Act, the expression “on active service” in
relation to force, means that it is engaged in operations against an enemy, or
is in a country or territory outside the Federation for the preservation of
life or property or is on military occupation of a foreign country, and in
relation to a person, means that he is serving in or with such a force which is
on active service. Soldiers in Malaysia may include the Regular Forces and
Volunteer Forces of Malaysia and any other forces which may be declared by the
Yang di-Pertuan Agong from time to time to be Armed Forces, superior officer or
serviceman, volunteers, commanding officer, officer, provost officer, regular
forces, and service chief and air force (see section 2 of the Armed Forces Act
1972 (Act 77).
Being at Sea
In Malaysia, the term “being at sea” can be seen
in section 26(1) of the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346). Under this section it is
clearly stated that a mariner or seaman (including a member of the naval forces
of Malaysia) being at sea, may dispose of his property or of the guardianship,
custody and tuition of a child or may exercise a power of appointment
exercisable by will by a privileged will. The privileged will of a seaman at
sea was illustrated in In the Estate of
Wilson; Wilson v Coleclough
[1952] 1 All ER 852. In this case, the deceased was a chief officer employed in
the marine department of a petroleum company. On 11 January 1946, he went on
leave in England, and on 25 April he received instructions to join a ship on 30
April. On 27 April he made a nuncupative will by saying in the presence of
witness: “If anything happen to me, I want everything to go to my mother”. It
was held that the deceased made the will in contemplation of the voyage on 30
April and, therefore, he was a “seaman at sea” within the meaning of s 11 of
the Wills Act, 1837, and the will could be admitted to probate.
The privileged will of a
mariner being at sea was illustrated in the case of In Re Godfrey (Deceased) [1944] NZLR 476. In this case, a marine
engineer, who was drowned at sea when his ship was torpedoed, wrote from his
ship in the Suez Canal on August 19, 1941, a letter containing the passage
“About the Insurance of mine…the money I save is all yours anyway…”. Northcroft
J. held that the writer was “a mariner being at sea”, and that, therefore, the
letter was a testamentary disposition, and the letters of administration with
the will annexed was granted to his widow.
In Re Rapley’s Estate, Rapley v Rapley [1983] 3 All ER 248, the court
held that, section 11 of the 1837 Act exempted any mariner or seaman at sea
from the formal requirements imposed by the Act for the valid execution of a
will because those who were at sea were without legal assistance and also faced
a greater risk of death. However, in this case, the court held that the
document made by the deceased was not a valid testamentary disposition because
he had not, by the time he executed the document, received instructions to join
a ship. In Re Hamilton deceased
[1982] NI 197, Kelly J. pointed out that “mariner or seaman” includes sailors
of a merchant ship. In In the Goods of
Alfred John Wilson, Decd. Wilson v Coleclough [1952] P. 92, the court held
that the declaration made by a chief officer in a merchant ship, in
contemplation of sailing in a particular ship which he had been ordered to join
on a specific voyage for which he was then preparing, was a nuncupative will.
The court granted letters of administration to the plaintiff of the estate of
the deceased with the contents of the nuncupative will annexed as the plaintiff
had satisfied the court that the deceased was a “seaman at sea” when he made
his nuncupative will.
PRIVILEGED WILL AS A MODEL FOR COMBATING
POVERTY AMONG SOLDIERS, AIRMEN AND
SAILORS IN MALAYSIA
Section 26 of the
Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) allows any soldier being in actual military service,
or any sailor (including a mariner, seaman and member of the naval forces)
being at sea, to dispose of his property by way of privileged will. From the
above discussion, privileged will appears to be relevant and important as
soldiers, airmen and sailors may dispose of their properties during
difficulties in obtaining advice and assistance to make a formal will.
By
allowing the privileged testator to make a privileged will, the privileged
testator may dispose of his properties to the beneficiaries or to the poor and
needy without complying with formalities in making a formal will. The
beneficiaries, the poor and needy would get benefit from the properties of the
privileged testator. This would lead to economic prosperity and social justice.
With regard to the importance of combating poverty, Hunud Abia Kadouf et al, mention that
Malaysia has been combating poverty since the era of Tun Abdul Razak in the
1960s. Not only poverty
is seen as a factor that may lead to political disturbance (Hunud Abia Kadouf et al, 2015), it may reduce the quality
of life. Therefore, this paper contends that privileged will appears to be
relevant and important and is a model for combating poverty.
Despite the benefit of having
legal provisions on privileged wills in Malaysia, it is found that the law on
privileged wills suffers from problems such as the legal provisions do not
apply to Muslim and native soldiers, airmen and sailors (mariners or seamen,
including members of the naval forces of Malaysia). There is no clear provision
of law to guide Muslim and native soldiers, airmen and sailors (mariners or
seamen, including members of the naval forces of Malaysia) to make privileged
wills. Even though Muslim and native
soldiers, airmen and members of the naval forces of Malaysia are soldiers
covered by the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77), they are not privileged as the
Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) and the Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158) seem to exclude them
from making privileged wills.
Thus, this may hurt their
rights to make privileged wills. This paper
suggests that the Government of
Malaysia should support the idea to extend the provision of law on privileged
wills to Muslims according to conditions prescribed by shari’ah, and to the natives. This is to enable the society to earn
and benefit from the property disposed of by Muslim and native soldiers, airmen
and sailors. By allowing them to
execute privileged wills when they are in actual military service or at sea,
the economy of the beneficiary, the poor and needy may be increased. They can
earn and benefit from the property disposed of by privileged wills. The
community can pool various funds to broaden ownership.
Having acknowledged that
privileged wills law is good to benefit the soldiers, airmen and sailors,
Patricia Critchley however writes that the continued existence of
privileged wills does not appear to be desirable. She gives the reason that the
average modern soldier in barracks in England, or a sailor on extended shore
leave, has no difficulty in obtaining the advice, materials and assistance
needed to make a formal will (Patricia Critchley, 1999). Similarly, A.L.G. Goodhart argues
that privileged will is
no longer relevant as the military authorities also put efforts in giving
advice free of charge (A.L.G. Goodhart, 1949; G. Cole, 1982; Patricia
Critchley, 1999).
Nevertheless, T. Weiss mentions that despite the apparent opportunity to make a formal will, the lack of
psychological energy and attention when a soldier is in rigorous preparatory
training means that it is unreasonable to expect completion of testamentary
formalities. Therefore, he suggests that it is important for morale to allow
members of the armed forces, who are acutely aware of the risk of their death,
to make privileged wills by relaxing the testamentary formalities (T. Weiss, 1947).
Case law seems to suggest that privileged wills are not limited to soldiers of little education (See May v. May [1902] P. 103, n) Soldiers, airmen and members of
naval forces may make a privileged wills provided they are in actual military
service (See Re Wingham, Andrew v. Wingham [1949] P. 187; [1948]
2 All ER. 908. The flexibility
in making a privileged will is significant as soldiers’ wills are good despite
defects in number of witnesses or testamentary formalities (See Justinian’s Institutes. Translation: Institutes II. Translated with
an Introduction by Peter Birks and Grant McLeod. With the Latin text of Paul
Krueger, 1987).
CONCLUSION
The applicability of privileged will in Malaysia to soldiers, airmen and
sailors is pursuant to section 26 of the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) and the Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158). It does not matter whether the soldiers have high or low level of education, or they are able to consult
someone for making a will, as long as they are on campaign or in combat, they
face death. As such, they are qualified to make a privileged will provided they
satisfy the requirement of “in actual military service”. Similarly, it does not
matter whether the sailors have high or low level of education, or they are
able to consult someone for making a will, as long as they are at sea, they
face death. As such, they too are qualified to make a privileged will provided
they satisfy the requirement of “being at sea”. “Therefore, the provision of
privileged wills must be preserved in Malaysia.
The clear issue is, even
though the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) and the Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158) give freedom to soldiers,
airmen and sailors to make privileged wills, however, at the same time there is no clear legal provision on how Muslim and
native soldiers may make privileged
wills when they are in “actual military service” and how Muslim and native
sailors (mariners or seamen, including members of the naval forces of Malaysia)
may make privileged will when they are “at sea”. The study suggests that, the
sustainability of privileged wills among soldiers, airmen and sailors is
important. The Government of Malaysia should not only maintain the provision of
law on privileged wills but should also support the idea to extend the
provision of law on privileged wills to Muslims according to conditions
prescribed by shari’ah, and to the
natives. This is to enable the society to earn and benefit from the property
disposed of by soldiers, airmen and sailors in Malaysia so that economic
prosperity and social justice could be sustained.
REFERENCES
Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act
77).
A.L.G. Goodhart. (1949). 65 L.Q.R. 6, 7. In Patricia Critchley. (1999). Privileged
Wills and Testamentary Formalities: A Time to Die?. 58 Cambridge L.J. 49,
55. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from Heinonline database.
Drummond v Parish [1843] 3 Curt 522. 7 Jur 538, 163 ER 812.
English
Wills Act 1837.
Everett Paul Griffin, H.E. Chenoweth, Lessing
Rosenthal, W.T. Waterman & J.R.
Wilson. (1943). Report of the Committee on Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Wills. A.B.A.
Sec. Real Prop. Prob. & Tr. Proc. 147. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from
Heinonline database.
E.B.M. Note on Mariners’ and Soldiers’ Wills. (1946).
11 Law Sch. Bull. 49. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from Heinonline
database.
G. Cole. (1982). How Active is Actual Military
Service?.Conv. 185. In Patricia
Critchley. (1999). Privileged Wills and Testamentary Formalities: A Time to
Die?. 58 Cambridge L.J. 49, 55. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from
Heinonline database.
Hunud Abia Kadouf, Faridah Hussain & Saudah Sulaiman,
“The Institution of Waqf as a Model for Poverty Alleviation: Lessons from
Malaysia”, The International Conference on Waqf 2015 (ICWC2015), Universiti Sultan Zainal
Abidin Kuala Terengganu. May 10-11, 2015.
In the Estate of
Spark [1941] 2 All ER 782.
In the Estate of Wilson; Wilson v Coleclough [1952] 1
All ER 852.
In the Goods of
Hiscock [1900-03] All ER Rep 63.
In the Goods of
Alfred John Wilson, Decd. Wilson v Coleclough (1952) P.
92.
In Re Godfrey
(Deceased) [1944] NZLR 476.
1 James Schouler. (1915). Law of Wills Executors and
Administrators (5th ed.) 445, 453-455. Retrieved April 29, 2013,
from Heinonline database.
Justinian’s Institutes. Translation: Institutes II.
Translated with an Introduction by Peter Birks and Grant McLeod. With the Latin
text of Paul Krueger. 1987. Cornell University Press, 71.
Kitchen, Re Kitchen v Allman (1919) 35 TLR 612.
May v. May [1902] P. 103, n.
Patricia Critchley. (1999). Privileged Wills and
Testamentary Formalities: A Time to Die?. 58 Cambridge L.J. 49, 55-58.
Retrieved April 29, 2013, from Heinonline database.
Re Stable Dalrymple v Campbell [1918-19] All ER 299.
Re Wingham, Andrew v.
Wingham [1949] P. 187.
Re Wingham (deceased): Andrews and Another v Wingham [1948] 2 All ER 908.
Re Booth; Booth v
Booth [1926] All ER Rep 594. Also reported [1926] P 118; 95 LJP 64; 135 LT 229;
42 TLR 454.
Re Rapley’s
Estate, Rapley v Rapley (1983) 3 All ER 248.
Re Hamilton
deceased [1982] NI 197.
Robert J Murphy 11 (1981) Memorandum 81-29 Subject: Study L-603 - Probate Code (Nuncupative Wills), 2.
Sabah Wills Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 158).
St Amaud Mercury. (Vic.: 1914-1918), Saturday 2 February
1918, page 5. Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Wills. Legal Rights of Fighting Man.
Retrieved April 29, 2013. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91348037.
Thompson on Wills (1936) sec. 32. In E.B.M. Note on
Mariners’ and Soldiers’ Wills. (1946). 11 Law Sch. Bull. 49. Retrieved
April 29, 2013, from Heinonline database.
T. Weiss. (1947). The Formalities of Testamentary
Execution by Service Personnel. 33 Iowa L. Rev. 48, 53, 83-84. In
Patricia Critchley. (1999). Privileged Wills and Testamentary Formalities: A
Time to Die?. 58 Cambridge L.J. 49, 55-58. Retrieved April 29, 2013,
from Heinonline database.
Wills Act 1959 (Act 346).
2 W. Bowe & D. Parker, Page on the Law of Wills
§ 20.25. In Robert J Murphy 11 (1981). Memorandum
81-29 Subject: Study L-603 - Probate Code (Nuncupative Wills), 2.
Wills of soldiers on Active Service. (1914). 34 Can.
L. Times 1162, 1169-1172. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from Heinonline
database.
Brief
Biography
Faridah Hussain, previously practising as an
Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya) Malaysia, from 1993 – 2009.
Acquired her Diploma in Law in 1990 and Advanced Dip. In Law from Institut
Teknologi MARA, 1992. In 2007, she obtained her LL.M from University of Malaya,
Malaysia. From September 2009 until now, she is a lecturer at the Faculty of
Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Currently she is a registered Ph.D’s student at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of
Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Acknowledgements (This
work is part of the first authors’ Ph.D study and is partly sponsored by
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia).
Telephone: +60355211030. Email address: faridah355@salam.uitm.edu.my and faridahhussain355@yahoo.com
Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal obtained LL.B (Hons.)
(IIUM), LL.B (Shariah) (IIUM), LL.M (Hull) and Ph.D (IIUM). He is an Associate
Professor at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws IIUM. Telephone: +60361964239.
Email address: mkmhisham@iium.edu.my
Akmal Hidayah Halim obtained her first degree in
law (LL.B) from the International Islamic University Malaysia in 1998. In 1999
she was awarded with a Master of Comparative Law (MCL) by the same university
and was conferred with a Doctorate Degree in 2006 in the area of estate
administration in Malaysia. Currently, Akmal Hidayah Halim is an Associate
Professor at the Department of Legal Practice, Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws,
International Islamic University Malaysia, 53100 Gombak, Kuala Lumpur. Office
Telephone: 0361964205. Email address: akmalh@iium.edu.my
Tajul Aris Ahmad Bustami obtained LL.B (Hons.)
(IIUM), LL.B (Shariah) (IIUM), LL.M (London) and Ph.D (IIUM). He is an
assistant Professor at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws IIUM. Telephone:
+0361964200. Email address: tajularis@iium.edu.my