The High Court has ruled that an alleged incident in which a man was said to have thrown timber at his mother would not alter the decision in an earlier judgment concerning her estate and a claim under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald delivered the addendum on 23 November 2018, following his first judgment on 7 November. The court said the order giving effect to that decision had not yet been perfected, and the matter had been adjourned to allow the parties to consider the judgment.
The addendum concerned evidence from P, identified as a sister of the deceased. She told the court that her mother had said the plaintiff threw a piece of timber at her in or around 2006. P said she was not present when it allegedly happened; she saw a piece of timber outside the office afterwards. The plaintiff denied throwing anything. The judge had found the plaintiff and P credible witnesses.
The judge said he had mistakenly stated in the first judgment that he could not consider P’s evidence because the court had received no submissions about its admissibility. Counsel for both parties later confirmed that the plaintiff’s counsel had accepted the evidence could be admitted, for what it was worth, making the defendant’s planned submission unnecessary. The judge said there were strong reasons to revisit that part of the judgment and considered the evidence.
He did not find that the incident occurred, describing P’s account as essentially hearsay and noting the plaintiff’s denial. Instead, he considered whether the first judgment would change if the incident had happened. He concluded it would not: the alleged event was isolated, the evidence did not establish a pattern of offensive behaviour, and the deceased had not complained of aggression at a later family meeting in August 2007. The judge also said the alleged incident, on its own, would not justify the deceased’s decision to expel the plaintiff from the family farm and business or limit his provision under her 2011 will, nor would it bar the equitable relief claimed.
The addendum therefore left unchanged the orders proposed in the first judgment. It did not make a finding that the alleged incident took place.