The High Court found that Dermot Horan exerted undue influence over his mother, Mary Ann Horan, and acted unconscionably in opening a joint bank account, directing rental income into it and withdrawing funds for his own benefit. In its judgment, delivered on 4 July 2024, the court concluded that he would be ordered to repay the funds to his mother’s estate. The conclusion does not specify the amount of that order.
Shane McNamara, the court-appointed administrator of the estate, brought the proceedings seeking declarations about the account and repayment of money withdrawn. The court found that Mrs Horan had dementia from 2014 until her death in 2018. It relied on medical evidence, including evidence from doctors who assessed her in 2015. The judgment records that Horan disputed the medical evidence but called no medical witness to support his position.
Horan accepted that he opened the joint account in April 2015 and made the withdrawals from it between April 2015 and April 2016. The account received rental income from an industrial property. The administrator’s evidence was that €232,449 was withdrawn, including a €39,000 bank draft that was never encashed and was later credited back to the estate. A further €8,900 in cash found at Mrs Horan’s home was also credited to the estate. The administrator said €191,880 remained unaccounted for.
Horan offered several explanations for spending the money, including security costs for company property, legal bills, company expenses and the purchase of two digging machines. The judge found his account incomplete and unreliable, noting the absence of supporting records. The court found that the money was used for Horan’s benefit and that there was no evidence Mrs Horan had agreed to the account, withdrawals or spending.
The court held that the mother-and-son relationship, Mrs Horan’s dementia and Horan’s significant benefit gave rise to a presumption of undue influence. It found that he had not rebutted that presumption and that he had also exerted actual undue influence. The judge separately concluded that the transactions were unconscionable and should be set aside as improvident.
The judgment’s final conclusions state that Horan would be ordered to repay the funds to the estate. They do not give a precise amount or set out the terms or timing of repayment.