The High Court has dismissed an appeal in a dispute over provision from the estate of a man who died intestate in 2014, affirming the Circuit Family Court’s orders in favour of his surviving partner.
Ms Justice Nuala Jackson delivered judgment on 11 December 2025 in proceedings brought under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The parties are anonymised as C.D., the deceased man’s partner, and E.F., a parent and personal representative of the deceased, A.B.
C.D. and A.B. met around 2008 and lived together until A.B.’s death. The court accepted that they had been in an intimate and committed relationship, that C.D. was a qualified cohabitant under the 2010 Act and that the couple had planned to marry.
Their home was an apartment purchased in A.B.’s sole name, although the court heard that the couple chose it together and paid household expenses from a joint account. C.D. has continued to live there.
A.B.’s estate included the apartment, valued at €440,000 to €460,000, life assurance proceeds of about €195,000, a pension gratuity of about €45,000 and savings of roughly €6,500. The mortgage, which stood at about €195,000, was subsequently cleared using the life assurance proceeds and other funds.
E.F. argued that C.D. was financially self-sufficient and that A.B. had already made proper provision for him during their relationship. The High Court rejected the suggestion that section 194 required proof of a separate moral or other obligation on the deceased.
Jackson J found that A.B. had played a substantial role in providing accommodation and meeting the couple’s expenses, and that those arrangements ceased on his death. She also considered C.D.’s modest income, housing dependence on the apartment, progressive disability and the absence of financial need on the part of A.B.’s parents or siblings.
The appeal was dismissed and the Circuit Family Court’s orders were affirmed in full. The precise terms of those underlying orders are not reproduced in this judgment.