The High Court approved a proposed arrangement replacing a trust in E’s will and approved the compromise of a related claim brought by E’s daughter, O, under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965. The court did not decide whether O’s claim had merit.
In a judgment delivered on 18 March 2021, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore considered two applications: a 2020 special summons under section 24 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, and an application to approve the settlement of O’s section 117 proceedings.
O had alleged that E failed to make proper provision for her. The judge said he could not assess the claim’s merits because the tax report relied on to support O’s argument about the value of her inheritance did not make clear whether its legal assumption about the will was one its authors stood over. He therefore decided the applications without considering the strength of O’s claim.
The will provided O with income from the residuary estate during her lifetime, with capital and undistributed income passing to her two children after her death. It also provided for possible future children of O’s children, R and G, if the conditions in the will were met. The proposed settlement would distribute 55 per cent of the remaining estate to O and the balance to her children, but would displace that contingent-beneficiary trust. The court had previously paused approval of the settlement because the future beneficiaries could not be identified or consent.
Under the replacement arrangement, separate funds would be held for the possible future children of R and G. The court considered actuarial evidence valuing the contingent interests at no more than 4.4 per cent of the estate for R’s possible children and 2.75 per cent for G’s children. It also considered proposed funds of €159,500 for R’s class and €121,744 for G’s class, including estimated trust administration costs. O and her children agreed to the arrangement.
The judge concluded that the actuarial evidence and other circumstances supported approval under section 24. He also designated the applicants appropriate persons to make that application. Having assessed the settlement afresh, he approved the compromise of the section 117 proceedings, citing the parties’ informed agreement and the likely cost and emotional strain of a trial. The judgment leaves the precise formal orders to be agreed and presented to the Registrar. The judge also ordered that the hearing and judgment be treated as held otherwise than in public, with liberty to apply on that aspect.