The High Court has dismissed a farmer’s claim to recover about 155 acres he transferred to his nephew in 2012, finding the transfer was not an unconscionable bargain or an improvident transaction.
In a judgment delivered on 27 July 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts said the uncle had made an independent decision to transfer part of his farm to a younger relative he saw as its successor. The transfer covered about three quarters of his landholding and the lands were valued at €1.05 million. Livestock and machinery valued at €54,500 were also transferred. The uncle retained about 58 acres, other assets and a lifetime right of residence in the farmhouse on the transferred lands.
The uncle argued that he was at a material disadvantage and that his nephew had taken unfair advantage of his wish to hand over the farm while retaining a meaningful role. He said he expected the nephew to return the farm to dairy production and believed he had signed a lease. The nephew denied exploiting him and said he had intended to resume dairy farming, but that the relationship deteriorated soon after the transfer.
The judge rejected the uncle’s account that he thought the deed was a lease. She found he understood the difference between a transfer and a lease and had made the decision about which land to transfer. Although he had poor literacy skills and was likely to need verbal explanations, the court found he could understand maps, figures and land values. His age and health did not make him vulnerable at the time of the transaction.
The court noted that the same solicitor acted for both men, and that the conveyancing file did not clearly record that the deed had been read and explained to the uncle. The judge said separate legal advice would have been preferable and the file could have been better documented. However, she found the uncle had instructed the solicitor and that there was no evidence the nephew took advantage of him. The solicitor’s alleged negligence was not for decision in this case; separate proceedings against the former solicitors were ongoing.
The court accepted that returning the farm to dairy production was part of the uncle’s motivation, but found the relationship had broken down before the nephew’s failure to resume dairying could explain it. It also found the uncle was not left financially vulnerable and had later bought additional land. The court made no award of general damages and said it would not attribute individual blame for the parties’ conduct after the transfer.
The court’s stated orders declare the nephew entitled to the legal and beneficial interest in the transferred lands, subject to the uncle’s registered right of residence; direct the uncle to vacate the lis pendens; restrain him from interfering with the nephew’s use and occupation of the lands; and dismiss the uncle’s proceedings. The parties were to return for a mention on 10 October 2023, when the form of order and costs would be addressed.