The High Court has found that a father failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for his daughter, who has severe epilepsy and cannot manage her own affairs. It directed that the net assets of his estate be converted into cash and distributed, with 50% to his daughter and 16.66% each to his two sons and his partner.
Mr Justice Birmingham delivered the judgment on 21 January 2011 in an application under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965. The sons and daughter had sought provision from their late father’s estate. The daughter, P.A., was a ward of court and sued through her mother and next friend, A.K.
The testator died in 1999. His will left a share of a commercial yard to his three children and his partner, J.R., and left the residue to J.R. It also left a residential site to each son, subject to planning permission being obtained within two years of his death. Neither son obtained permission within that period, and the court noted that J.R. had objected to their planning applications. The testator had transferred a house site into joint names with J.R.; after his death, she became sole owner of the bungalow built there through survivorship. The sons’ separate claim that the transfer should be treated as a testamentary bequest was withdrawn, and the case proceeded only under section 117.
At the date of death, the estate’s net value was about €815,800. By the hearing, the assets were estimated at €543,450. The judgment records that P.A. had frequent seizures, relied on disability benefit and needed constant supervision. The judge found a “clear failure” to provide properly for her. He also found that the two sons’ intended provision would have been proper, but the planning-permission condition undermined it because the outcome depended on planning decisions outside their control.
The judge recognised a moral obligation to J.R., who had been the testator’s partner and had cared for him after his strokes. But he found the testator had failed to account for the substantial benefit J.R. received through ownership of the bungalow when making provision for the children. The court’s distribution departed from the will to address the daughter’s needs while also making provision for the sons and J.R.
The judgment records the distribution direction. It does not state in the supplied text a separate deadline for sale or identify how the assets are to be converted into cash.