Carroll v. Carroll [1999] IESC 11 (21st July, 1999)

Carroll v. Carroll [1999] IESC 11 (21st July, 1999)

The Supreme Court held that the presumption of undue influence arose due to the relationship and circumstances of the transfer. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption because the solicitor did not provide independent legal advice with full knowledge of the donor's circumstances, and there was no evidence the transaction was explained or read over to the donor. The transaction was also improvident as it left the donor without means of support. The appeal was dismissed and the deed set aside.

Citation
[1999] IESC 11
Parties
Plaintiff: Winifred Carroll; Plaintiff: Mary Jane Carroll; Defendant: Michelle Carroll
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Improvident Transactions, Voluntary Conveyance, Independent Legal Advice, Laches and Acquiescence
Equity Property Law Undue Influence Improvident Transactions Voluntary Conveyance Independent Legal Advice Laches and Acquiescence

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winifred Carroll

Plaintiff

Mary Jane Carroll

Plaintiff

Michelle Carroll

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of undue influence arose in the transfer of property from Thomas Carroll senior to Thomas Carroll junior
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by evidence of independent legal advice or absence of actual undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was improvident and should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the presumption of undue influence arose due to the relationship and circumstances of the transfer. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption because the solicitor did not provide independent legal advice with full knowledge of the donor's circumstances, and there was no evidence the transaction was explained or read over to the donor. The transaction was also improvident as it left the donor without means of support. The appeal was dismissed and the deed set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • The deed of 3rd May 1990 is set aside