The High Court has upheld a Circuit Court decision that Michael Egan Jnr is entitled to an undivided half share of a 36-acre family farm in Garrymore, Shannonbridge, Co Offaly. It directed the parties to try to agree the remaining terms of the court order.
The appeal concerned whether a one-sentence document signed, or bearing the signature of, Egan Jnr could release his interest in the farm to his father, Michael Egan Snr. The farm had been left to Egan Snr for life under his uncle Thomas Egan’s 1975 will, with the remainder passing equally to Egan Jnr and his brother Kieran. Egan Snr later left the farm to his youngest son, Alan, in his 2014 will.
The document, which referred to a “remainder share in the residue” of Thomas Egan’s estate, was undated and unwitnessed. Egan Jnr said he did not sign it and claimed the signature was forged. The High Court considered handwriting evidence from experts for both sides and concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that his signature was not forged.
But the court rejected the executors’ argument that this ended the case. It found Egan Jnr had not learned of his inheritance until 2015, after his father’s death. The judge considered the release of limited evidential value, citing its vague wording and the absence of records explaining its preparation or execution.
The court held that a beneficiary cannot disclaim a bequest in favour of a person of their choosing. A disclaimer’s consequences follow by operation of law; it cannot be used to redirect an inheritance and effectively rewrite the testator’s will. The purported release was therefore void from the outset, and Egan Snr had no entitlement to the farm’s freehold through it.
The High Court agreed with the Circuit Court’s decision that Egan Jnr was entitled to an undivided half share and to be registered as owner of that share as a tenant in common. It did not decide the executors’ limitation argument, saying that issue was unnecessary to resolve the case on its conclusion; it invited further submissions if the parties considered a finding necessary. The parties were ordered to engage on the outstanding matters and provide any agreed draft order to the Registrar. The case was provisionally listed for mention one week after judgment if final orders remained necessary.