The High Court has ruled that a minor daughter of the late John Hickey must elect between the proceeds of a life policy held in trust for her and a bequest under his will. It also rejected his widow’s claim that she had a beneficial interest in the house he owned when he died.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2005, Miss Justice Laffoy considered two issues raised by a special summons concerning the estate. The judgment says Hickey died on 30 January 1999. His will, made on 26 May 1998, left IR£100,000 in trust for his daughter until she reached 25, and the residue to his wife, Sinead Devane Hickey.
A separate trust, created in 1993 in connection with a life assurance policy, provided that the policy proceeds would go to the daughter unless Hickey appointed beneficiaries by deed. He made no such appointment. After his death, the proceeds—IR£223,350, stated as €283,595.99—were paid to trustees appointed by the court on the daughter’s behalf.
The widow argued that the will provision was intended to satisfy, in whole or in part, the earlier provision for the daughter, so she should not take both. The judge found that the equitable presumption against double portions applied and was not rebutted by the evidence. She concluded the will provision was intended in part satisfaction of the policy trust provision.
The court answered that the will did not exercise the power of appointment, which could be exercised only by deed. The daughter was entitled to elect between the policy proceeds and the bequest. The judgment said the distribution depended on that election; on the assumption she elected to take the policy proceeds, the payment to trustees on her behalf would stand and the widow would have no interest in those proceeds. The judgment does not record a completed election.
The second issue concerned a house at 9 The Dell, Huntsfield, Dooradoyle, Limerick. Hickey was its sole legal owner when he died. The widow said she had contributed financially to its acquisition, including by borrowing IR£4,000 to repay an employer loan Hickey had used for the deposit, and that mortgage payments came from their joint account.
The judge found the evidence did not establish an understanding that the widow would have a beneficial interest. The couple’s stated arrangement was that each would own a house, and the widow later acquired a house in her own name. The judge also said gaps in the bank statements made it impossible to calculate any contribution. The court ruled they were not equitable joint tenants and that the widow had no beneficial interest in the house at the date of Hickey’s death.