The High Court has found that a Wexford man had testamentary capacity when he made a will leaving his farm and home to his nephew, reversing the Circuit Court’s decision that the will was invalid. The judge said he would hear counsel on the appropriate order; the judgment does not record the final order made after that hearing.
The deceased, Michael Buckley, died on 20 March 2011. He had lived and farmed on a property of about 54.8 acres at Caim, Enniscorthy. His will was signed in hospital on 15 March 2011, leaving the property to his nephew, Richard Cooper Junior.
The deceased’s siblings challenged the will, arguing that he lacked the mental capacity to make it and that the nephew and his family had exerted undue influence. The nephew denied both claims and sought to have the will admitted to proof in solemn form.
The Circuit Court had found that the deceased lacked capacity when he signed the will and that he died intestate. On appeal, High Court judge Mr Justice Meenan concluded that the evidence fell considerably short of establishing undue influence. He found no evidence that the nephew’s family had monopolised hospital visits, and said their arrangements for solicitors to attend the deceased did not, without more, amount to undue influence.
The judge considered evidence that the deceased’s condition had been very poor. He had undergone a colostomy days before signing the will, was receiving intravenous feeding and had been prescribed opioid painkillers. A solicitor who visited him on 12 March said he could not engage or answer questions and was incapable of giving will instructions.
A different solicitor, Jason Dunne, attended on 15 March with an accounts manager from his firm. Dunne said the deceased answered questions about his property, family and intended beneficiary, understood possible tax implications, and confirmed that he wanted the property to go to his nephew. The deceased also denied being pressured. Dunne’s note of the visit was typed the following day.
The judge accepted Dunne’s evidence. He acknowledged an inaccurate answer about the property’s acreage and a signature described as a scrawl, but found neither established incapacity. He also considered differing medical expert opinions on the effects of the deceased’s illness and pain medication, accepting evidence that drug levels were low when the will instructions were given.
Meenan said the deceased had capacity on the evening of 15 March. He considered the decision to leave the property to one family member rational, given its importance to the deceased and the nephew’s involvement in farming. The judgment reverses the Circuit Court’s decision, with the precise consequential order left for a further hearing.