K vs K Section 117 Succession Act 1965

TargetWidow wrote: »

Recent case from the HC Kvs K in which Justice McDonald found the deceased had failed in her moral duty to provide properly in her will for the needs of one of her sons, awarding him €1.25 million worth of land.

The case was conducted behind closed doors.

Anybody hear who the SC was on the case please?

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/09974f5aa40e52b08025833e004ee1cf?OpenDocument
It was found that the deceased had failed in her moral duty to provide properly in her will for the needs of one of her son but there was a lot more to the case than that.

The Judge did not give an award under s.117 but under a 1997 contractual and estoppel promise.

"Conclusion

144. In my view, subject to hearing any submissions from the parties to the contrary, the only orders to be made in this case are those set out in paras. 112 and 125 above"

"112. I have not lost sight of the fact that, as part of the 1997 contract, the deceased told the plaintiff that M. would also have to be looked after out of the gift to him. This is confirmed by the terms of the 1997 Will under which the gift to the plaintiff was stated to be subject to and charged with the payment of IR£30,000 to M. within two years following the death of the deceased. I have given consideration as to whether the decree of specific performance should be made subject to a similar charge. I have, however, come to the conclusion that in the circumstances outlined in para. 81 above it would not be appropriate to do so. As noted in para. 81 above, it is clear that M. was subsequently looked after by the deceased in a number of ways: -"

"125. In these circumstances, I believe that the only appropriate way in which to satisfy the equity of the plaintiff in this case is to make a declaration, in the alternative to the order for specific performance proposed in para. 111 above, that the plaintiff is entitled to the 90 acres described in para. 111 above in satisfaction of the equity arising in respect of his parallel proprietary estoppel claim. In circumstances where I propose to make an order in the terms of para. 111, in satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of the testamentary contract, I do not believe that it is necessary to make any further order for the transfer of the lands in satisfaction of the equity which I have just described."