The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by F.C. and two other defendants against High Court orders concerning more than €900,000 transferred from M.C., a ward of court. It affirmed the orders setting aside the alleged gifts and declaring that the money and property bought with it remained M.C.’s property.
The appeal challenged a High Court judgment delivered on 17 May 2013. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 30 July 2013, said the High Court had been entitled to find that F.C., M.C.’s nephew, exercised undue influence over her. The Court said the appellants raised no substantial grounds of appeal.
M.C. was declared a ward of court in November 2009. After she became unwell while living alone in Dublin in February 2006, she spent about four years at various locations in her native county, under F.C.’s supervision or living with him. She entered a nursing home in March 2010 and continued to live there at the time of the judgment.
The High Court found that M.C.’s Dublin house was sold for a net €2,717,313.05. After some of the proceeds were used to buy a house in her native county, €1,938,453.40 was transferred into her account in May 2008. The High Court found that eight withdrawals followed between May 2008 and May 2009. More than €400,000 went into accounts controlled by F.C.; the Supreme Court described the total transferred to accounts over which he exercised effective control as about €900,000.
The High Court found that M.C.’s cognitive impairment progressed from mild to moderate and that she lacked capacity for complex financial transactions during 2008 and 2009, while retaining some ability to manage day-to-day affairs. It also rejected F.C.’s account of a “gentleman’s agreement” to fund a machinery hire business. The Supreme Court noted the trial judge’s conclusion that F.C. was an unreliable witness and that there was no credible evidence M.C. received legal or financial advice about the transactions.
The High Court found that €322,560 from M.C.’s account was invested in the machinery hire business where F.C. worked. It also found that €215,000 was transferred to Polish accounts under F.C.’s and a Polish national’s control, with the stated purpose of investing in property there and keeping the money unavailable for repayment if M.C. entered wardship.
The Supreme Court stressed that it was hearing an appeal, not conducting a retrial. It held that the High Court’s factual findings were supported by credible evidence and that F.C. had not shown the transactions were independent, informed exercises of M.C.’s free will. The appeal was dismissed and all High Court orders were affirmed.