The High Court ruled that Jean Maher became solely entitled to the funds in a joint account she held with her late father, Michael Hoare, after his death. It concluded that the account carried a right of survivorship and that Maher did not hold the money on trust for his estate.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Gilligan on 19 December 2014, resolved a specific issue about the account at First Active’s Roscrea branch. It did not determine the separate appeal concerning an earlier decision about a farm bequeathed to Maher.
At the account’s opening, former bank employee Marguerite Walsh said Hoare told her he wanted to give money to his daughter. Walsh recalled suggesting a joint account with equal access for both account holders and explaining that the survivor would receive the funds when the other died. She said both Hoare and Maher signed the application.
Maher, who represented herself in these proceedings, supported Walsh’s account when called as a witness for William Naylor, Hoare’s son and the notice party. Naylor’s counsel challenged Walsh’s recollection, including differences between a 2009 letter and a handwritten letter from 2014. The earlier letter referred to Hoare’s 10-day notice account and did not mention a joint account or expressly state that the funds would pass to the survivor. Walsh said she had mistakenly written “his” account instead of “their” account, and maintained that money had been moved into a new joint account.
Naylor’s side also argued that Hoare’s wills, made in 2005 and 2006, took the account funds into consideration, suggesting he intended them to remain part of his estate. Maher disputed a related suggestion that the estate lacked enough funds to meet specific bequests.
The judge said Walsh gave a clear account, supported by Maher, and that no contrary evidence had been produced. He accepted that Hoare intended both account holders to have access during their joint lives and the survivor to receive the funds. Citing earlier decisions on joint accounts, he answered the agreed issue in Maher’s favour: she was legally and beneficially entitled to the account balance by survivorship.
The dispute arose within wider will proceedings brought by Naylor. An earlier High Court decision rejected his allegations of duress and undue influence but granted his claim to the farm under promissory estoppel. That decision was under appeal at the time of this judgment.