The High Court found that a daughter had shown a need for greater financial security than her father’s will provided, even after taking her expected inheritance from her mother into account. The court identified an estimated annual income shortfall of €12,000 but did not specify the form of any further provision in its judgment, allowing counsel to assist on the order to be made.
The application was brought under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965 by C. W., who argued that her late father, J. L. W., had failed in his moral duty to her when disposing of his estate. The father died in June 2000. His will placed the remaining farm, known as “the G.”, in trust for his wife for life and then for his son, the respondent. It also left shares valued at about €240,000 to each of his three daughters.
The judge valued the G. at about €7 million at the father’s death, preferring one auctioneer’s evidence to a lower probate valuation. Including shares and other items, the estate was estimated at about €9 million. The applicant’s expected inheritance from her mother was also relevant: the judge applied the legal approach that the father should be treated as having foreseen that his wife’s committee would elect for her legal right share. The court estimated the applicant might receive somewhat more or less than €1 million from her mother’s estate.
The evidence before the court described the applicant’s limited earning capacity and a lifelong tendency to depression, for which she took medication. The judge accepted that she was unlikely to earn substantially more than her past wages. The respondent acknowledged a shortfall in provision but argued that the applicant’s education, past employment and gifts from their father should be considered. She had received gifts totalling £32,000, which she had kept invested; the shares were then worth about €200,000.
After buying a home, the applicant was projected to have assets producing about €30,000 a year, including income from her shares and estimated earnings or pension. The judge concluded that a prudent parent would have provided greater income security, including protection if investment returns were lower than expected. The court considered the applicant’s concern about possible future nursing-home costs, but said that selling a home could meet that need.
The judgment concluded that the applicant had established a need for greater security after distribution of her mother’s estate. The judge assessed prudent provision at about €42,000 annually, compared with projected provision of €30,000, leaving a €12,000 annual shortfall. The precise order was left for further consideration after counsel’s submissions; the judgment did not state a final amount or form of payment.