The Dublin Circuit Court ordered that a daughter receive 25% of her late father’s estate after finding he failed in his moral duty to ensure she received an adequate secondary school education.
In a judgment dated 1 December 2023, Judge Jennifer O’Brien ruled on the daughter’s application under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965. The court said the failure was limited to education and had an ongoing effect on her ability to earn income and build pension benefits.
The father died in 2017, leaving a will that gave 75% of his estate to one daughter, identified in the judgment as C, and 25% to his son, identified as W. The plaintiff, identified as PF, was left no share under the will. The defendant, identified as BH, was the deceased’s son-in-law and executor.
PF argued that she had been taken out of school at 13 and made to work in a sewing factory, contributing money to the family household. The defendant disputed that account. Evidence from C was that both girls chose not to return to school after working at the factory over a summer. The court nevertheless found that the deceased had failed to ensure PF received an adequate secondary education. It also found she had contributed financially to the household from a young age, which it described as a special circumstance.
The court rejected the claim that the deceased had made no material provision for PF during her lifetime, saying he had provided comfort to his children during their childhood and that they appeared to have had a happy childhood. It also weighed PF’s financial circumstances against those of her siblings, including their homes, savings, pensions and lifetime gifts. The court said it sought to preserve the father’s intention to favour C and did not aim to create equality between PF and W.
The order gives PF 25% of the proceeds from the sale of the Dublin premises named in the will and 25% of the estate’s residue. C is to receive 50% of each, and W 25% of each. The judgment recorded the estate’s current net value as €353,723.91, held in the executor’s solicitors’ client account.
The court also made costs orders in both directions: the defendant is to receive costs from PF from 26 July 2021 onwards, while PF is to receive costs from the defendant from the issue of proceedings until that date. Costs are to be taxed if not agreed.