McC. (M.) v. M. (D.H.) [2001] IEHC 152 (31st October, 2001)

McC. (M.) v. M. (D.H.) [2001] IEHC 152 (31st October, 2001)

The applicants did not demonstrate any special need or circumstances at the date of the testator's death that would give rise to a moral obligation on the part of the testator to make further provision for them under section 117. The testator's primary moral duty was to provide for his daughter A H, who has significant needs, and the applicants' claims were not sufficient to warrant intervention by the court.

Citation
[2001] IEHC 152
Parties
Applicant: First Named Applicant; Applicant: Second Named Applicant; Respondent: D H; Respondent: E H
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Succession Act Application Under Section 117 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Moral Duty of Testator, Provision for Children, Interpretation of Will, Special Needs Trusts
Succession Law Moral Duty of Testator Provision for Children Interpretation of Will Special Needs Trusts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Named Applicant

Applicant

Second Named Applicant

Applicant

D H

Respondent

E H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Act Application Under Section 117 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the testator failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the applicants under section 117 of the Succession Act, 1965
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had special needs or circumstances justifying intervention by the court

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not demonstrate any special need or circumstances at the date of the testator's death that would give rise to a moral obligation on the part of the testator to make further provision for them under section 117. The testator's primary moral duty was to provide for his daughter A H, who has significant needs, and the applicants' claims were not sufficient to warrant intervention by the court.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application of both applicants under section 117 of the Succession Act, 1965 is refused.