The High Court dismissed a challenge to Celine Murphy’s will and admitted it to probate in solemn form, finding that the will was duly executed and that Ms Murphy had the capacity to make it.
The case concerned a handwritten will dated 8 March 2011, seven days before Ms Murphy died. It left her property, money, policies and belongings to Mary Butler, described in the document as her “Best Friend”, and named Bishop Michael Cox as executor. The court heard that Ms Murphy signed the document at the Butler home in Straffan, County Kildare, with Cox and Joanna Butler present as witnesses.
Ms Murphy’s siblings Majella Rippington and Edel Banahan, together with Majella’s husband Shaun Rippington, sought to have the will condemned. Their pleaded grounds included lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence and an allegedly improvident transaction. The defendants denied the allegations and counterclaimed for admission of the will to probate. The judgment records a defence argument that the two siblings lacked standing because their mother had succeeded to Ms Murphy’s estate on intestacy; it does not state a separate ruling on that issue.
The plaintiffs questioned whether Ms Murphy could have travelled to the Butler home that evening, relying on telephone records and journey-time evidence. The judge found the available time allowed for a visit consistent with the witnesses’ accounts. He accepted the evidence of Cox and Joanna Butler about the signing, and found it consistent with the other evidence about Ms Murphy’s movements that day.
The court also considered medical evidence about Ms Murphy’s cancer, fatigue and deteriorating condition. Her doctors’ evidence included that medication taken before her final hospital admission would not have impaired her mental capacity. The judge found that accounts from people who saw or spoke with Ms Murphy on 8 March described her as lucid and coherent. He concluded that the will’s terms showed she understood the nature of the document and the property she was disposing of.
Although the will had no attestation clause, the judge was satisfied from the witnesses’ evidence that it had been executed in accordance with section 78 of the Succession Act 1965. Because it was duly executed and appeared rational on its face, the court presumed capacity; the judge said the evidence also established capacity independently of that presumption.
The court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim and admitted the will to probate in solemn form. The judgment does not set out any separate order on the counterclaim’s ancillary reliefs.