Murphy v Law Society of Ireland and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Egan |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] IEHC 48 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 2021 /5330 P |
In the Matter of the Estate of William Doyle Deceased, Late of Bealalaw, Myshall in the County of Carlow
[2024] IEHC 48
2021 /5330 P
THE HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Egan delivered on the 1 st day of February, 2024 .
. William Doyle (“the deceased”), a 77 year old bachelor without issue died on 12 th November, 2019. This is a construction suit in respect of his last will and testament of 19 th July, 2019, which appears to have been prepared with the assistance of his solicitor. The plaintiff, a nephew of the deceased is a beneficiary under the will. He seeks various reliefs as against the first named defendant, a niece of the deceased who is named as an executor in the deceased's last will (“the executor”). The other defendants, the deceased's sister and his remaining nieces and nephews are residuary legatees under the will (together “the Roberts defendants”).
. The plaintiff who was also initially named as an executor renounced his entitlement to extract a grant of representation when the present dispute became apparent. A grant of probate issued to the executor on 17 th May, 2021. No issue arises in relation to the valid execution of the will or the appointment of the executor.
. At the date of his death, the deceased was the owner of registered lands situate at Bealalaw, Myshall in the County of Carlow as described in folio CW11156 (“the folio”). The folio contains four different parcels of land on four different plans as follows:
Plan No. 3 contains 8.013 hectares, “situate in the Townland of Bealalaw in the Barony of FORTH, in the Electoral Division of Myshall”. The house where the deceased lived is on the Bealalaw lands.
A short distance to the north of the Bealalaw lands (and therefore not contiguous therewith) are two other parcels of lands shown on plans Nos. 11 and 29, containing 6.999 hectares and 6.804 hectares respectively. These lands are “situate in the Townland of Myshall, in the Barony of FORTH, in the Electoral Division of Myshall”.
A short distance to the south of the Bealalaw lands (and again not contiguous therewith), is a parcel of land shown on plan No. 48 containing 6.31 hectares. These lands are “situate in the Townland of Raheenleigh in the Barony of FORTH in the Electoral Division of Myshall.”
It is common case that the lands are all agricultural lands. No evidence was put before the court that the lands were all farmed together as one farm. It appears that the total value of the lands comprised in the folio is approximately €465,000. In addition to the dwelling house and lands, the deceased's estate is also comprised of sheep and cattle, farm machinery and a car with a total value of €35,000 approximately and several bank accounts with a balance of just over €340,000.
. The deceased's last will and testament is short and provides as follows:
“ I William Doyle of Belalaw [sic], Myshall in the County of Carlow MAKE this as and for my last Will and Testament HEREBY REVOKING all former Wills and testamentary dispositions created in the Republic of Ireland only heretofore made by me…
2. I GIVE DEVISE AND BEQUEATH my dwelling house, farm buildings and lands at Belalaw [sic], Myshall, in the County of Carlow, together with any Entitlements attaching to the said lands, together with all my farm machinery and livestock owned by me at the date of my death to my nephew Peter Murphy for his own use and benefit absolutely.
3. I GIVE DEVISE AND BEQUEATH and APPOINT all the rest residue and remainder of my property of whatsoever nature and kind and wheresoever situate both real and personal or over which I have a power of appointment as between [the Roberts defendants] as join [sic] tenants in equal shares for their own use and benefit absolutely.
The plaintiff and the Roberts defendants are in dispute as to how clause 2 is to be construed. The plaintiff argues that it devises to him the entirety of the deceased's lands comprised in the folio. The Roberts defendants contend that the bequest to the plaintiff is limited to the Bealalaw lands and that the Myshall and Raheenleigh lands fall into residue.
. The plaintiff pleads that there is no ambiguity on the face of the will and that all of the lands in the folio have been devised to him. However, if this court finds that there is ambiguity on the face of the will, then the plaintiff pleads that it ought to be resolved by the admission of extrinsic evidence pursuant to s. 90 of the Succession Act, 1965 (“s. 90”). Section 90 provides that extrinsic evidence shall be admissible to show the intention of the testator and to assist in the construction of, or to explain any contradiction in a will. It is common case that there is no contradiction on the face of the deceased's will; the question is rather whether the will is ambiguous on its face requiring the admission of extrinsic evidence to assist in its construction.
. The plaintiff pleads that the extrinsic evidence on which he wishes to rely is to the following effect: that the farm had been in the deceased's family for generations; that the deceased had wanted the farm to stay in his blood; that throughout his lifetime the deceased referred to his farm and all of his lands as “ Bealalaw” and did not refer to the different townlands; that the deceased's instructions to the solicitor who drew up the will was that all of his farmlands were located at Bealalaw; that the sheds surrounding the dwelling on the Bealalaw lands are used to winter the livestock and hold it for sale and testing; and that without the full land-holding the farm would not be viable and would have to be sold. In addition to the above, the plaintiff also proposes to admit extrinsic evidence of an earlier will of the deceased of 24 th April, 1998 (“the earlier will”) pursuant to which the deceased bequeathed to him “ my farm and livestock, farm stock, farm machinery and implements and also my car and any other items on my said farm”.
. In the alternative, the plaintiff advances a claim to the entirety of the lands in the folio based on proprietary estoppel. He pleads that the deceased promised him the farm, and that he therefore worked the lands for a lengthy period of time in the expectation that he would inherit on the deceased's demise.
. The Roberts defendants also plead that there is no ambiguity on the face of the will and that it is clear that the deceased intended to devise only the Bealalaw lands to the plaintiff. Alternatively, they plead that the specific bequest to the plaintiff at clause 2 of the will is void for uncertainty and falls to be included in the residue.
. In response to the estoppel claim, the Roberts defendants plead that the plaintiff lives 30 miles away in Carlow and only assisted occasionally on the farm. They also plead that as the plaintiff evinced a clear intention not to pursue a farming life, the deceased had altered the earlier will wherein the entire of his lands were bequeathed to the plaintiff in anticipation that he would show a commitment to the farm.
. By motion dated 4 th October, 2022, the executor sought an order setting down for trial the preliminary issue of whether extrinsic evidence would be admissible in the construction of the will pursuant to s. 90. When the matter came before this court on 21 st April, 2023 it was agreed and directed that the trial would proceed on a modular basis as follows:
-
• Module 1 — the determination of whether an ambiguity exists in the will such that extrinsic evidence could be permitted pursuant to s. 90 in the construction suit;
-
• Module 2 — the balance of the construction suit; and
-
• Module 3 — the plaintiff's proprietary estoppel action.
. If this court finds that there is no ambiguity on the face of the will and that the correct interpretation is that contended for by the plaintiff, then no question of extrinsic evidence would arise, the construction suit would be at an end and modules 2 and 3 would fall away. Alternatively, if the court were to decide that no ambiguity exists but that the correct interpretation is that contended for by the Roberts defendants, then although module 2 would fall away, the plaintiff would presumably advance his proprietary estoppel claim, requiring the court to hear and determine module 3. If the court determines that an ambiguity exists, then the construction suit at module 2 would proceed. Provided it meets the dual test set out by the courts in relation to the admission of extrinsic evidence, both parties would then have the opportunity to present appropriate extrinsic evidence to the court. Thereafter, depending upon the outcome of the construction suit, the plaintiff's proprietary estoppel action would be heard as module 3, if required.
. The following is the court's judgment on foot of Module 1 which was heard on 10 th October, 2023.
. In O'Connell v Bank of Ireland [1998] 2 IR 596, Keane J. (as he then was) stated that the general principle is that, in construing a will, the object of the court is to ascertain the expressed intention of the testator. The law, he noted, was as stated by Simon L.C. in Perrin v Morgan [1943] A.C. 399 at p. 406:-
“… the fundamental rule in construing the language of a will is to put on the words used the meaning which, having regard to the terms of the will, the testator intended. The question is not, of course, what the testator meant to do when he made his will, but what the written words he uses mean in the particular case – what are the ‘expressed intentions’ of the testator.”
. In Curtin v...
To continue reading
Request your trial