A Circuit Court judge has refused to admit to probate a homemade will made by Joseph Kavanagh in 2018, finding it was not properly executed and, alternatively, that it resulted from undue influence and unconscionable conduct by Seamus Conroy, a taxi driver who had become closely involved in Mr Kavanagh’s affairs.
The judgment, delivered by Judge John O’Connor on 20 December 2021, dismisses Mr Conroy’s claim to establish the 17 April 2018 document as Mr Kavanagh’s last will. The court also refused Mr Conroy’s application to revoke an earlier will, dated 28 August 2014, which had been admitted to probate in common form in January 2020.
Mr Conroy said he had provided taxi services and practical help to Mr Kavanagh, and claimed under the disputed will to be entitled to the contents of Mr Kavanagh’s home and the net proceeds from its sale. Cormac Ó’Ceallaigh, executor and solicitor under the 2014 will, alleged fraud and undue influence. Those were allegations; the court said the more appropriate description of Mr Conroy’s conduct was unconscionable conduct rather than civil fraud.
The central dispute over execution concerned the two attesting witnesses. Rita Cahill said she signed the document without seeing Mr Kavanagh sign it or seeing his signature, and left after handing it to Derek Nangle. Mr Nangle said Mr Kavanagh signed the will in front of both witnesses and they signed in each other’s presence. The judge accepted Ms Cahill’s evidence as credible and found Mr Nangle’s evidence rehearsed and not credible. On that basis, the court held the document did not meet the requirements of section 78 of the Succession Act 1965.
The judge also found that from December 2016 until Mr Kavanagh’s death in August 2019, Mr Conroy had complete control over his financial affairs and decision-making. The court accepted evidence that Mr Conroy controlled Mr Kavanagh’s pension money, arranged the removal of the house title deeds from Mr Ó’Ceallaigh’s office, and that Mr Kavanagh believed an investment made with Mr Conroy would produce a substantial return that never materialised. The judge found Mr Conroy had set up the will-signing meeting and produced the draft, retained the document, and that Mr Kavanagh received no independent legal advice.
The court said that even if the will had been properly executed, the relationship and circumstances gave rise to undue influence that had not been rebutted. It also found Mr Kavanagh was vulnerable and unable to make a worthwhile judgment about his best interests in this matter. The judgment does not determine costs: the judge said the parties would be heard on any costs application after potentially affected residuary beneficiaries were informed.