Braniff vs Braniff

This case concerned a dispute over the validity of a will made by Annie Josephine Braniff, with allegations of undue influence by the main beneficiary, Alice Braniff.

TLDR:

• The plaintiff, Alice Braniff, sought to have the will of her mother, Annie Josephine Braniff, proved in solemn form.
• The defendant, Nicholas Braniff, contested the will, claiming undue influence by Alice.
• The court found that the will was valid and not procured by undue influence.
• The court dismissed the counterclaim and upheld the will.

The plaintiff, Alice Braniff, as executrix of the will of Annie Josephine Braniff (deceased), issued proceedings to have the will dated 27 November 1999 proved in solemn form. The defendant, Nicholas Braniff, a brother of the plaintiff, contested the will on the grounds of undue influence by Alice.

The testatrix, Annie Josephine Braniff, was born on 22 February 1916 and had 12 children. She executed her will on 27 November 1999, leaving the dwelling house and curtilage to Alice, with rights of residence for her brothers, and the lands to Alice absolutely, with a request to allow her brothers to use the land responsibly. The testatrix died on 17 December 2010, and a grant of probate was extracted on 15 November 2018.

The defendant claimed that the will was procured by undue influence, citing several factors including the plaintiff's role as the principal beneficiary, her presence during the will's creation, and the testatrix's vulnerability due to age and health. The court heard evidence from various witnesses, including the solicitor who drafted the will, Aidan Hanna, and family members.

Mr. Hanna, an experienced solicitor, testified that he met the testatrix alone, took her instructions, and was satisfied that she understood and agreed with the will's contents. He denied discussing the will's details with Alice. Patricia Middleton, the testatrix's granddaughter, corroborated Mr. Hanna's account, confirming that she witnessed the testatrix signing the will.

Dr. Barbara English, a medical expert, opined that while the testatrix was vulnerable to undue influence, there was no evidence that undue influence was actually exercised. The court found that the testatrix was strong-willed and in control of her decision-making.

The court considered the physical and mental health of the testatrix, her dependence on Alice, and the provisions of the will. It found that the testatrix had good reasons for the will's terms, including Nicholas's financial difficulties and poor management of the lands.

The court concluded that the will was a product of the testatrix's free will and not procured by undue influence. It dismissed the counterclaim and upheld the will in solemn form.

Legal representatives: Mr. John Coyle BL (instructed by McShanes, Solicitors) for the plaintiff, Mr. Keith Gibson BL (instructed by T G Menary & Co, Solicitors) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: McBride J

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NICh 15