A man yesterday won his Supreme Court challenge to his father's willing of a substantial part of the family farm to a neighbour's child.
The man had worked the family farm for 35 years but was left £5,000 and no land. Some of the lands were sold by his father before his death, some had already been made over to another son and the remaining 170 acres was left to the neighbour's child.
Giving the Supreme Court's judgment upholding the man's appeal to overturn that part of the will leaving land to the child, Mr Justice Barron said the man's father did not like the man's wife or her family.
The father was badly injured in an accident in the 1960s and unable to work the farm, originally of about 450 acres.
Soon after the father's injury the appellant son substantially undertook running the farm. The father became very friendly with a neighbouring family and occasionally stayed with them.
Mr Justice Barron said the real problem appeared to have begun 20 years ago when the son married. The father then resided permanently with the neighbouring family, and a rift opened between father and son. The father did not make any settlement with the son who, with his wife, continued to live on the lands, despite a court order.
The son was imprisoned for refusing to vacate the lands and remained in jail for nearly a year before he gave undertakings. The father made over certain lands to the other son and, while the appellant son was in prison, sold some lands. Mr Justice Barron said those lands seemed to have been sold at an undervalue.
Because the proceedings were taken under the Succession Act, 1965, and were heard in camera, there are restrictions preventing disclosure of the identity of those involved.
Mr Justice Barron said the case gave rise to what was in effect a new question in this field, the extent to which the courts should take account of bad feeling between the parent and child. Section 117 of the Succession Act recognised that the relationship of parent and child created a moral obligation to provide for the child in accordance with the parent's means. That obligation could be satisfied by will or otherwise.
The deceased man's decision to eject the son from the lands must have been in breach of his moral obligation to provide for his son, and more particularly the moral obligation which he owed his son for keeping the farm going.
The judge said the deceased had left the neighbour's child the land because that was his only asset. To split off any part of the holding in favour of the son might engender further unnecessary ill will.
It might be better for that reason for the entirety of the remaining lands to pass to the appellant son instead of his £5,000 legacy, on condition that he pay the neighbour's child a sum of money as if it were a pecuniary legacy.
Before deciding on this matter, the court would like to hear the wishes of the parties and be provided with information as to the value of the lands and any other assets of the estate. The judge said the parties could consider the matter and raise it at a later date.