Hickey v O Dwyer & Ors [2005] IEHC 365 (09 November 2005)

Hickey v O Dwyer & Ors [2005] IEHC 365 (09 November 2005)

The presumption stands that the testator did not intend the fourth defendant to take both the provision under the 1993 Trust and the bequest in the will. An election must be made on behalf of the fourth defendant, who is entitled to choose between the trust fund and the bequest. The plaintiff is not entitled to a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 365
Parties
Plaintiff: Sinead Devane Hickey; Defendant: Brian O'Dwyer; Defendant: Grainne O'Dwyer; Defendant: Breda Hayes; Defendant: Nicole Hickey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Special Summons / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed in part; declaration as to election required
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Satisfaction, Rule Against Double Portions, Beneficial Interest in Property, Power of Appointment, Joint Tenancy
Succession Law Equity Trusts Doctrine of Satisfaction Rule Against Double Portions Beneficial Interest in Property Power of Appointment Joint Tenancy

Source-derived case record

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinead Devane Hickey

Plaintiff

Brian O'Dwyer

Defendant

Grainne O'Dwyer

Defendant

Breda Hayes

Defendant

Nicole Hickey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Summons / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the testator's bequest in his will exercised the power of appointment over the life assurance policy proceeds
  2. 2 Whether the fourth defendant is entitled to both the proceeds of the policy and the bequest under the will
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has a beneficial interest in the dwelling house

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption stands that the testator did not intend the fourth defendant to take both the provision under the 1993 Trust and the bequest in the will. An election must be made on behalf of the fourth defendant, who is entitled to choose between the trust fund and the bequest. The plaintiff is not entitled to a beneficial interest in the dwelling house, as the evidence does not support such an interest.

Court Disposition

application dismissed in part; declaration as to election required

Orders

  • Fourth defendant must elect between the proceeds of the policy and the bequest under the will
  • Distribution of the proceeds of the policy to trustees on behalf of the fourth defendant will stand if election is made for the trust fund