Re The Estate of Teresa McGoldrick [Deceased]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Siobhán Stack
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 750
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: PO 2024/9634

In the Matter of the Estate of Teresa McGoldrick, Late of 4 Highfield Road, Sligo, County Sligo, Deceased

And in the Matter of the Succession Act, 1965,

And in the Matter of An Application by Mary Durcan-Mullane

[2025] IEHC 750

PO 2024/9634

THE HIGH COURT

PROBATE

Judgment of Ms. Justice Siobhán Stack delivered 19 ^th December, 2025 .

Introduction

1 . Teresa McGoldrick late of 4 Highfield Road, Sligo, County Sligo, (“the Deceased”), died on 11 May, 2022, having executed her last will and testament on 29 April, 2015, (“the 2015 Will”) and died subsequently without having altered or revoked it. In that will, she left her house, which was her principal asset to her niece, Mary (the applicant) and the residue to her sister, Madge, who is the applicant's mother. The applicant is a niece of the Deceased, and she applies to have the 2015 Will admitted to probate. The central issue for determination is whether the Deceased had testamentary capacity on the date of the making of the 2015 Will.

2 . It is a notable feature of this case that the Deceased had made eleven previous wills, between 2006 and 2014. These vary considerably in their terms and it will be necessary to refer to some of those in more detail later in this judgment. If the Deceased did not have capacity to make the 2015 Will, it will be necessary to decide in a future application which of her earlier wills should be admitted to probate.

3 . The Deceased died a widow, without parent or issue, leaving her surviving: her sister, Madge, a brother, Christopher (who has since died), and at least 24 nieces and nephews.

4 . The matter came on previously for hearing in the Probate List and, it appearing from a letter from the Deceased's GP in which he declined to provide an affidavit confirming testamentary capacity that the Deceased had suffered cognitive difficulties from Easter, 2014, I directed that the applicant would put on notice all beneficiaries named in the Deceased's wills of 14 May, 2014 and 1 September, 2014, being the two wills executed by her immediately prior to the execution of the will in question in this application.

5 . In response to that, some of the issue of the deceased's late sister, Bridie, have instructed solicitors and counsel to express their concerns about the deceased's capacity to make the will. However, they are not contesting the will of 29 April, 2015 and, in essence, simply feel the matter should be left to the court to decide.

6 . I should add that, even if none of the family members had taken this course, this matter would have had to be referred to court in any event, as it was noted on the Deceased's death certificate that she was suffering from vascular dementia at the time of her death. Where dementia is recorded as a cause of death on a death certificate, the Probate Officer will request an affidavit of a medical practitioner to the effect that the Deceased was, on the date of execution of the will, of sound mind, memory and understanding. Therefore, while the family members who have participated in the application have supplied further information, it is not their intervention which has necessitated the bringing of this application.

7 . In any event, in this case, as the general practitioner has not felt able to swear the required affidavit due to the cognitive decline which was noted from Easter, 2014, onwards, it now falls to the court to decide whether the Deceased had capacity to make her will on 29 April, 2015.

Previous Wills

8 . As already indicated, the Deceased made eleven wills prior to the 2015 Will which it is now sought to admit to probate. None of these wills is identical to any other will, but some broad themes emerge over time and I think it is convenient to group the wills which are in similar terms. In doing so, I will only refer by name to those who have taken part in the application.

Wills executed prior to the death of the Deceased's husband

9 . The Deceased was married to Tommy McGoldrick, who died on 21 September, 2007. Prior to his death, the Deceased made a will on 23 May, 2006, leaving everything to her husband and appointing him as sole executor. She revoked that will just three days later, on 26 May, 2006, and left her dwelling house and premises to her husband for his life and after his death directed that her executor (her sister, Mary) sell the house and divide the proceeds between her sister, Madge, her husband's niece, Dorothy, her brother John, and a small number of her nieces and nephews. She made a number of charitable bequests and left the residue to her husband. In the event of her husband predeceasing her, the beneficiaries of the proceeds of the sale of the house became her residuary legatees.

— Wills dated 5 December, 2007, 12 November, 2008, 3 June, 2009, 18 November, 2009, and 2 March, 2011

10 . As one would expect, the tenor of the Deceased's wills changed quite substantially after the death of her husband. It is not necessary to recite the contents of these wills in full. However, generally speaking, in these wills, the deceased nominated either her niece, Collette, or her sister, Madge, as executrices. This is relevant because testators generally choose people they trust to act as executor.

11 . These wills directed that the Deceased's house would be sold and the proceeds used to pay various pecuniary legacies in amounts which generally measured in the tens of thousands. The beneficiaries of these legacies are those of the Deceased's siblings who were still alive, a selection of her nieces and nephews, some charities and one or two relations of her husband.

— Wills dated 14 May, 2014 and 1 September, 2014

12 . In the will made 14 May, 2014, for the first time, the Deceased's nephew, Damian, is nominated as joint executor along with the Deceased's solicitor. The familiar list of fluctuating bequests to the Deceased's various family members appears, though Collette is no longer named as a beneficiary. This is consistent with Collette's affidavit to which I refer further below. The applicant is bequeathed the sum of €20,000, while her mother, Madge, receives €30,000. The bequests in total add up to €240,000, and the residue is to pass to Damian. However, the likely value of the residue at the time of execution of the will is unclear. The Deceased's house was worth €350,000, approximately eight years later, and was likely worth considerably less in May, 2014. I think the probabilities are that the residue, at the time that will was executed, would not have been particularly valuable.

13 . In the will made 1 September, 2014, the Deceased's nephew, Paul and her solicitor, are nominated as joint executors, again with a direction to sell the Deceased's dwelling house. A series of bequests amounting to €210,000 are left (including the sum of €30,000 each to the applicant and her mother) and the residuary legatees are named as the applicant, her mother, Madge, and her sister, Siobhán. However, it is again unclear as to how valuable that residue would have been at the time the will was executed.

14 . This will therefore represents something of a shift towards the applicant's family. This is perhaps explained by the fact that the Deceased suffered a fall in 2013 and from 2014 onwards, had the benefit of “home help” every morning but relied on her sister, Madge, to call to her in the afternoons and provide her with her main meal. The applicant called at weekends and, where possible, after work in the evenings.

— Wills dated 16 October, 2014 and 12 November, 2014.

15 . In the will of 16 October, 2014, Madge Durcan and the Deceased's solicitor are nominated as joint executors and Madge is the universal beneficiary. The gift over in the event of Madge predeceasing the Deceased was to the applicant for her sole use and benefit.

16 . In the will dated 12 November, 2014, Madge is appointed as sole executrix and the applicant is the substituted executrix in the event that Madge predeceased the applicant. This will again nominates Madge as the universal beneficiary with a gift over in favour of the applicant.

17 . These wills represent a significant departure from the earlier wills as, for the first time, the Deceased nominates only Madge and the applicant as her beneficiaries, as opposed to her earlier approach of directing the sale of her house for the purpose of dividing the proceeds between a significant number of her extended family.

18 . There is nothing irrational about this, as the Deceased was requiring more assistance with her daily life and it is natural that she would favour those who were most involved in her life, especially as she had been in hospital in September, 2014, and may have had to call on them more. The applicant's solicitor has exhibited the attendances for these wills and these show that the Deceased contacted him herself from time to time for the purposes of changing her will and there is no reference to Madge or the applicant having anything to do with the making of the will. By all accounts, the Deceased was an independent-minded and forthright lady. Having said that, it is clear from such medical evidence as is available that she was already having problems with her short-term memory. Furthermore, the notes from her GP demonstrate that she was aware of this and was embarrassed about it. In fact, it seems that she tried to hide that from others.

The test for testamentary capacity.

19 . The test for establishing testamentary capacity is that set out in Banks v. Goodfellow (1870) 5 L.R. Q.B. 549, 565, as follows:

“It is essential to the exercise of such a power that a testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effects; shall extend the extent of the property of which he is disposing; shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect….”

20 . In Flannery v. Flannery [2009] IEHC 317, Feeney J. confirmed (at p....