The High Court has ruled that Cecilia Gaynor did not establish a legal or equitable interest in lands and a bungalow at Farthingstown, County Westmeath, after hearing oral evidence on a defined issue ordered for trial.
Mr Justice Feeney delivered judgment on 14 September 2009. The issue was whether Ms Gaynor had an interest in 16.2127 hectares comprised in Folio No. 2538, and, if so, its nature and effect. The court did not decide the further questions about the existing well charging and sale orders because it found that she had no interest in the lands. It also expressly made no finding on any claim she might have for the return of £20,000 or another claim against her brother, John Gaynor.
Ms Gaynor claimed that she had contributed £20,000 towards the 1996 purchase from Edward Rogers and was entitled to a 50 per cent interest. John Gaynor supported her account. The solicitors involved in the documented sale were not told of the alleged additional payment. The written sale agreement named John Gaynor as purchaser, stated a price of £25,000 and gave Rogers a right to live in the bungalow for life. Sheridan and Quinn, who brought the original action, denied that Ms Gaynor had bought any part of the property and disputed that she had an interest affecting the existing orders.
The judge accepted that Ms Gaynor paid £20,000 into an account in Rogers’s name as a private, undisclosed payment connected with the sale. He also accepted that the three understood that, after Rogers’s death, John Gaynor would agree with his sister which land, including the bungalow, would be transferred to her. But the precise land was never identified or agreed. The court found that the arrangement contemplated a future agreement, not a 50 per cent share of the whole property.
The judge concluded that the land allegedly to be transferred could not be identified with sufficient certainty to create an enforceable legal or equitable interest. He also found that the two handwritten documents relied on by the Gaynors did not provide a sufficient written record of an agreement for land under the Statute of Frauds (Ireland) Act 1695. The payment, he said, did not establish a contract for a half interest in the whole property or an agreement with sufficiently precise terms.
The court added that, even if an equitable interest had otherwise been established, enforcing the arrangements would breach public policy because they were designed to conceal the true payment and transaction from the Revenue authorities. The judgment therefore resolved only the issue of Ms Gaynor’s interest in the lands; it did not determine whether she could recover the money or pursue another claim against her brother.