Gilvarry v Maher

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Gilligan
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 694
• Docket Number: [2013 No. 709 S.P.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 December 2014

[2014] IEHC 694

THE HIGH COURT

Gilligan J.

[2013 No. 709 S.P.]

BETWEEN

MILES GILVARRY

PLAINTIFF

AND

JEAN MAHER

DEFENDANT

AND

WILLIAM NAYLOR

NOTICE PARTY

Wills & Probate – Incapacity to make will – Duress and undue influence – Doctrine of promissory estoppels – Survivorship – Whether the money was held as a trust for the benefit of the estate.

Facts: Earlier in the case, the High Court refused the claim that the will was procured under duress and undue influence. The High Court set aside the award of the principal asset, the farm land. The High Court observed that the notice party would be entitled to the farm land in equity pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Subsequent to an appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court decision, the plaintiff now raised the issue whether the defendant had the right of survivorship with respect to the funds held in the joint account or whether the funds were held on trust and for the benefit of the estate.

Mr. Justice Gilligan held that the evidence presented before the Court succinctly proved that the account was intended to be a joint account and that the monies were to pass to the survivor on the death of the other party. Having no contrary evidence adduced, the Court observed that the defendant solely legally became beneficially entitled to the funds formerly held in the joint names.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Gilligan dated the 19th day of December, 2014

1 These proceedings arise from the last will and testament of Michael Hoare deceased as made on 9th November, 2006. The late Michael Hoare died on 7th April, 2007, and probate issued on 13th June, 2013. The deceased made a number of bequests, and the principal beneficiary was Jean Maher, a daughter of the deceased. Her brother, William Naylor, the notice party, brought proceedings to set aside the last will and testament which claimed that the deceased lacked the capacity to make a will or alternatively, the will was procured due to the duress and undue influence of Ms. Maher and/or alternatively, that the farm of lands the principal asset in the estate had been promised to Mr. Naylor and he was entitled to the farm in equity pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Subsequently, the issue of lack of capacity was abandoned and Mr. Naylor's case came on for hearing in the High Court and lasted over 22 days with this Court (O'Keefe J.) refusing the claim that the will was procured due to the alleged duress and undue influence of Ms. Maher, but allowing the claim that the principal asset, being the farm of lands and buildings which had been bequeathed to Ms. Maher, be set aside and that Mr. Naylor was entitled to the farm in equity pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court also awarded the entire costs of the hearing to Mr. Naylor. The decision of the court herein is currently under appeal to the Supreme Court. The actual issue that arises before this Court is set out in an issue paper as agreed between the parties as dated 4th June, 2014, and which is:-

‘Whether the defendant, Jean Maher, became solely legally and beneficially entitled to the funds formerly held in the joint names of Michael Hoare and Jean Maher in First Active, Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, Account No. 52074909, following the death of the late Michael Hoare on 7th April, 2007, on foot of a right of survivorship or whether the said defendant holds the said funds on trust and for the benefit of the estate of the late Michael Hoare.’

2 In this regard the defendant, Jean Maher, represented herself and Mr. Naylor was represented by solicitors and counsel. The plaintiff took no active part in the proceedings.

3 Ms. Maher opened her case to this Court and called one witness, Ms. Marguerite Walsh, a former employee with First Active. Ms. Walsh was the bank official present on the...