The High Court has awarded Gerard Finnegan half of the value of the farmland, stock and machinery in the estate of James Gartlan, finding that Gartlan’s assurances about a future inheritance led Finnegan to work on his farm for decades and suffer substantial detriment. The court did not award Finnegan the whole estate, and directed that money in bank accounts at the time of death go to Gartlan’s next of kin.
In a judgment delivered on 10 March 2016, Mr Justice Michael White held that a constructive remedial trust arose because of the uncertain nature of the promises. The order covers half of the portion of the estate comprising farmland in the identified folios, half the value of stock and machinery and miscellaneous items sold, with Finnegan to give credit for a gifted site valued at €10,000. The court declined to consider a claim for devastavit.
Finnegan had sought relief under proprietary estoppel or, alternatively, a constructive trust over agricultural land, farm buildings, fixtures, stock and machinery. He also sought monetary compensation based on quantum meruit. The judge said he had not relied on the quantum meruit claim.
The judgment records that Finnegan began working part time for Gartlan at about 11 and worked full time on the farm from 1971 until Gartlan’s death in 2009. The judge found he worked exceptionally long hours, including weekends, was substantially underpaid and contributed far beyond what an employee would normally be required to do. The court also found that Finnegan and his wife declined an offer of social housing in Carrickmacross in 1987 at Gartlan’s request, and remained in substandard accommodation until they built a house on a site Gartlan had gifted them.
Finnegan said Gartlan made direct and indirect assurances that he would benefit from the farm or be named in a will. The judge accepted that evidence despite concerns about Finnegan’s credibility, and found that he relied on the assurances to his substantial detriment. However, the court noted that no particular lands or folios were identified in the alleged promises, and there was no evidence Gartlan had actively tried to make a will. Evidence from Gartlan’s accountant suggested he might have intended to favour nieces and nephews.
The judgment also records Finnegan’s allegation that Gartlan sexually abused him between 1972 and 1979. The judge said he would not rely on that allegation in deciding the property claim because it was made after Gartlan’s death and the estate’s administratrix could not defend it. He said it had not undermined Finnegan’s credibility.
The court concluded that awarding the entire estate to Finnegan would be unjust to Gartlan’s next of kin. It therefore limited the equitable relief to the half share described in the order.