The High Court yesterday rejected claims by an elderly mother that her youngest son had exerted undue influence on her to sign a lease in 1995 for development of the mews premises at the rear of her home at Fitzwilliam Square from which a well-known restaurant, the Diep Le Shaker Thai restuarant, now operates.
Mr Justice Thomas Smyth described Ms Renee ffrench O'Carroll (83), a separated mother of five who came here from France in 1940, as "a highly intelligent and astute businesswoman" who fully understood the effect of the 1995 lease she had signed in favour of her son, Arthur, relating to the mews development and who was "wily, adroit and adamant" in her views.
He was satisfied that, when she signed the lease in 1995, she "wanted her way and she got it".
Mr Justice Smyth was delivering a reserved judgment upholding an appeal by Arthur ffrench O'Carroll, of Wellington Place, Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin, against an order of the Circuit Court of September 2005 in favour of Ms ffrench O'Carroll. The Circuit Court held that the execution of the 1995 lease was procured by undue influence and that it was null and void.
After delivering judgment, the judge adjourned the case to next Friday when he will deal with costs and other issues. Outside court, neither side would comment. Both Ms ffrench OCarroll and her son, accompanied by other family members, were in court for the decision.
The judge noted that Arthur was about 16 when his four siblings had left home. He and his mother had had a mutually supportive relationship which continued for many years, he found. She had supported him in business ventures and he managed lettings for her.
In the dynamics of their relationship, the judge said he was satisfied the mother was very much a dominant personality at all times and it was only in 1998 that her son had "become completely free" of her.
In court, the judge said, Ms ffrench O'Carroll had dismissed her son in "the most imperious tones" and had said she did not recognise him as her son. She showed "magisterial disregard" for him in suggesting he was a changed man.
This contrasted, the judge said, with her son's affection for her which, the judge was satisfied, "was not contrived".
Mr ffrench O'Carroll's wife, who had invested her own £100,000 inheritance in the resturant business, had also told the court she did not activly dislike her mother-in-law, the judge noted.
The judge said the mother and son had had a close relationship but this came under strain when he had tried to become independent of her. In the interests of charity and her age, the judge said he would not describe Ms ffrench O'Carroll as domineering.
He held that when Ms ffrench O'Carroll signed the disputed lease documents in 1995 she was satisfied the lease was intended to be in satisfaction of Arthur's one-fifth share of her estate. She was satisfied the mews was to be her youngest son's "inheritance" which inheritance was of her own giving, the judge found.
He noted she had referred to the French tradition of holding a property gift in trust for sharing between the children of the recipient of that gift.
He rejected claims by Ms ffrench O'Carroll that the disputed lease and other documents were signed as a result of undue influence, or that any form of pressure was exerted on her by her youngest son or solicitors. He was satisfied she had independent legal advice and was not pressurised into acting to her detriment. He also found the arrangement regarding the mews development was not of the nature of an unconscionable bargain.
She had agreed as far back as 1988-89 to grant a 99-year lease to Arthur in respect of the mews premises, he also found.
The fact that Ms ffrench O'Carroll saw what was going on with the mews development and in many respects encouraged it "disentitled her to succeed", he held.
He also noted Arthur ffrench O'Carroll and his wife had spent up to £200,000 developing the restaurant premises.
