Judgment: 2011-05-03 · Court archive

High Court sets aside €25,000 award to neighbour who cared for elderly woman

The court allowed the estate executor’s appeal, ruling that voluntary care given through friendship did not support a quantum meruit claim where there was no intention to create legal relations.

High Court · [2011] IEHC 179

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Catherine Coleman (Plaintiff)
  • Frank Mullen (Defendant)
  • Elizabeth O’Keeffe
What

The court allowed the estate executor’s appeal, ruling that voluntary care given through friendship did not support a quantum meruit claim where there was no intention to create legal relations.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dalkey
  • nursing home
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 29 January 2010

    In a judgment delivered on 3 May 2011, Mr Justice Hogan allowed an appeal by Frank Mullen, the executor of Ms O’Keeffe’s estate, against a Circuit Court award made on 29 January 2010. The appeal concerned whether Ms Coleman could claim reasonable payment, known as quantum meruit, for services she had provided to Ms O’Keeffe.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has set aside a €25,000 award to Catherine Coleman for years of help she gave her neighbour, Elizabeth O’Keeffe, after finding that the care was voluntary and there was no intention to create legal relations.

The High Court has set aside a €25,000 award to Catherine Coleman for years of help she gave her neighbour, Elizabeth O’Keeffe, after finding that the care was voluntary and there was no intention to create legal relations.

In a judgment delivered on 3 May 2011, Mr Justice Hogan allowed an appeal by Frank Mullen, the executor of Ms O’Keeffe’s estate, against a Circuit Court award made on 29 January 2010. The appeal concerned whether Ms Coleman could claim reasonable payment, known as quantum meruit, for services she had provided to Ms O’Keeffe.

The judgment records that the two women were neighbours in Dalkey, living within one kilometre of each other. From about 1993 until Ms O’Keeffe moved to a nursing home in 1998, Ms Coleman helped with daily chores, drove and accompanied her on errands, and provided meals and company. She also cleaned Ms O’Keeffe’s home and did laundry and cooking. After the move, Ms Coleman continued visiting, doing laundry and personal care, and looking after the house. She estimated she spent about 20 hours a week helping. The extent of the work was disputed to some degree, but the judge said its considerable nature was not really challenged.

Mr Justice Hogan said the evidence showed the assistance arose from friendship and neighbourliness. He accepted Ms Coleman’s evidence that she would have continued helping even if Ms O’Keeffe had made clear she would leave her no provision in her will. The judge found no promise or expectation of payment, no contract, and no intention to create legal relations.

The judgment distinguished the case from claims involving professional agents, whose work in a commercial context may support reasonable remuneration, and from a prior case involving an alleged agreement to transfer farms. It said imposing payment for voluntary neighbourly care without an intention to create legal relations would require a significant change in the law, a matter for the Oireachtas.

The appeal was allowed and the Circuit Court award was set aside. The High Court did not award Ms Coleman payment for the services described.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review