A man who had worked the family farm for more than 35 years yesterday lost a High Court challenge to his father's decision to leave the land to a neighbour's child.
In his judgment on the matter, which was brought under the 1965 Succession Act and heard in camera, thus preventing disclosure of the parties' identities, Mr Justice McCracken said the case had a tragic background.
It gave rise to considerations of whether, and to what extent, the behaviour of a child towards his father might affect the father's moral duty under the Act.
The court heard the father was badly injured in an accident in the early 1960s.
During the father's lifetime he made over some of his land to another son. On his death, he left the applicant son £5,000. The remainder of his land, under the terms of the will, was to be held in trust for a neighbour's child until he was 18.
The applicant son left school shortly after his father's injury and had substantially ran the farm while the father dealt in cattle and looked after horses. The judge said the father became very friendly with a neighbouring family, who were related to him, and during the 1970s would occasionally stay with them.
Mr Justice McCracken said that having heard the evidence he did not accept the son was effectively left to fend for himself, as he had food provided by the local shop and the benefit of 50 acres of tillage land.
The real problems appeared to have arisen about 20 years ago when the applicant son married. The father disliked the wife's family and lived permanently with the neighbouring family. This was the beginning of a serious rift between father and son.
The father did not make any form of settlement on the son who, with his wife, continued to live on the lands. Following a number of incidents the father got a court order directing the son to leave the lands, but the son remained. He was imprisoned for refusing to vacate the lands and remained in jail for almost a year before giving undertakings.
In the meantime, the father made over certain lands to another son and sold land. The whole affair had led to neighbours taking sides and to bad feeling.
Mr Justice McCracken said the son's behaviour towards the father was quite appalling. He effectively took over his father's lands. While the father managed to retrieve two of the farms during his son's imprisonment, the son and his family continued to live on the home farm to this day.
They had no right to do so. The son also permitted and encouraged a campaign of intimidation against his father. The worst of this intimidation occurred when the father was in poor health.
It was clear from the father's will that he was aware he might have a moral obligation to the son as he left a legacy of £5,000.
Mr Justice McCracken said the son continued to occupy 400 acres, for which he paid nothing.
The father, who died in the early 1990s, was entitled to consider he had conferred a considerable benefit on his son, not withstanding his appalling behaviour. Mr Justice McCracken said he was satisfied the father's moral duty had been fulfilled.