The Court of Appeal dismissed Jean Maher’s appeal against an order transferring the remaining farm lands of her late father, Michael Hoare, to her brother William Naylor (otherwise Hoare). It varied the order in two respects: Naylor must disclaim the part of a €150,000 legacy he would otherwise receive, and his award of High Court costs was reduced to 75%.
The dispute concerned two wills. Under a 2005 will, Hoare left the lands to Naylor. A 2006 will revoked that will, left the lands to Maher and bequeathed €150,000 to Naylor. Naylor challenged the later will, alleging duress and undue influence, and also claimed that promises by his father gave him an equitable right to the lands. The High Court rejected the will-related allegations but upheld his claim based on promissory estoppel, awarding him the remaining lands. Maher appealed the remedy and the order awarding Naylor all his High Court costs from the estate. She did not appeal the finding of promissory estoppel.
The Court of Appeal agreed that transferring the lands was an appropriate way to satisfy Naylor’s claim. It said the effect of his father’s promises and Naylor’s reliance on them went beyond a monetary loss: Naylor had changed the course of his life by returning from Dublin to work on the farm. A payment reflecting financial detriment alone would not do justice in the circumstances. The court did not adopt a general rule for how promissory-estoppel claims should be remedied, saying the appropriate outcome depends on each case.
The court disagreed with allowing Naylor both the lands and the €150,000 legacy. It considered the legacy under the 2006 will intended to replace the lands left to him under the 2005 will. The transfer was therefore made conditional on Naylor disclaiming the portion of the legacy he would otherwise receive. The judgment noted that legal costs would reduce pecuniary bequests, including his legacy.
On costs, the court said it had been reasonable to start proceedings that investigated the circumstances of the 2006 will, including the undue-influence claim. But before trial, the available evidence should have alerted Naylor to the weakness of that claim. It occupied a significant part of a lengthy hearing, which the judgment describes as lasting 22 days in its costs discussion. Applying principles concerning will disputes and costs in cases with unsuccessful issues, the court ordered a 25% deduction from the High Court costs otherwise payable to Naylor from the estate.
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court order was affirmed subject to the legacy disclaimer and the award of 75% of Naylor’s High Court costs, to be taxed and ascertained if the parties could not agree.