The High Court has dismissed Kieran Mulcahy’s claim for an alleged unpaid property purchase price against his late mother’s estate, finding that delay had caused unfairness that could not be remedied at trial. Two other claims, concerning rental income and personal services, will proceed to a plenary hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 4 June 2024, Ms Justice Bolger considered the estate’s application to dismiss all three claims for delay and Mulcahy’s separate application for summary judgment. She dismissed the Bushy Park Road claim, refused summary judgment on the other two claims and directed that they proceed to a full hearing. Final orders, including costs, were to be considered when the case returned to court on 20 June.
The Bushy Park Road claim concerned a 20 per cent share in a property that Mulcahy sold to his mother, Hilda Mulcahy, in 1982 for €21,578. The conveyance included a receipt clause signed by him, but he says he was never paid. He relied on an affidavit his mother swore in 2005 acknowledging the alleged debt; she later sought to withdraw that account, saying she had sworn it under pressure and duress.
The judge found the delay in bringing that claim inordinate and largely the plaintiff’s responsibility. The transaction was more than two decades old when proceedings began, and key witnesses, including Hilda Mulcahy, were unavailable. The judge concluded that the estate had been deprived of evidence needed to answer the plaintiff’s account, creating an unfairness a trial judge could not sufficiently address. She dismissed the claim on delay grounds; she did not determine whether the alleged debt was owed.
The rental claim seeks €76,272.12 for Mulcahy’s alleged three-eighths share of rent from a Temple Road property between April 2000 and October 2007, after deductions claimed for expenses, capital works and tax-related payments. A 2011 High Court case had rejected his sisters’ argument that their father’s will created a secret trust over the property’s rental income. Justice Bolger said that ruling’s binding finding was limited to rejecting the secret-trust claim; comments describing the family’s rental arrangement were obiter and did not resolve the present claim.
Although the judge found delay in the rent claim, she considered that records, discovery and available witnesses could allow a fair trial. She also found arguable issues, including the estate’s contention that Hilda Mulcahy relied on her understanding of the rent arrangement and spent money on the property. The rent claim was therefore allowed to proceed, but not summarily decided.
The third claim seeks €58,080 for work Mulcahy says he performed in reviewing his father’s estate administration. The estate disputes whether there was an agreement to pay him and whether any liability would belong to his father’s estate rather than his mother’s. The judge found those defences arguable and directed that this claim also proceed to a plenary hearing.
Justice Bolger’s indicative view was that the costs of the summary-judgment motion should be reserved to the trial judge, with no order as to costs on the delay application. Those were indicative views pending final orders.