McQuaid vs McQuaid

This case concerned a dispute over the validity of a will executed by the late Terence Benedict McQuaid, with the plaintiff contesting the will on grounds of lack of capacity and undue influence.

TLDR:

• The plaintiff contested the will, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.
• The court examined medical records and testimonies from family members and professionals.
• The court found the deceased had testamentary capacity and dismissed the undue influence claim.
• The will was admitted to proof in solemn form.

The plaintiff, the eldest son of the deceased, Terence Benedict McQuaid, challenged the validity of a will executed on 17 July 2018. The defendants, named executors of the will, sought to admit it to proof in solemn form. The plaintiff argued that the deceased lacked the necessary capacity and was subject to undue influence at the time of execution.

The disputed will was signed by the deceased and witnessed by Jim Hughes, an accountant, and Patrick Mallon, a solicitor. The plaintiff claimed that the deceased, who was hospitalized for advanced metastatic bladder carcinoma and urosepsis, was confused and lacked testamentary capacity. The plaintiff also alleged undue influence in the execution of the will.

The court reviewed expert reports from Consultant Psychiatrists Dr. Barbara English and Dr. James Anderson. Dr. English noted the deceased's intermittent confusion but did not find evidence of a lack of testamentary capacity. Dr. Anderson concluded that the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of execution, supported by the solicitor's attendance note.

Family members provided conflicting testimonies. Rebecca McQuaid, the deceased's daughter, claimed her father was not in a fit state to make a will. However, her credibility was questioned due to her motivations and behavior. Other family members, including the deceased's brother and two daughters, testified that the deceased was aware and capable when making the will.

Jim Hughes and Patrick Mallon, who were present during the will's execution, testified that the deceased was fully aware of his actions and had the necessary capacity. Mr. Mallon, an experienced solicitor, had known the deceased for over 20 years and took reasonable steps to ensure his capacity.

The court found that the deceased had testamentary capacity, understanding the effect of his wishes, the extent of his estate, and the nature of the claims on him. The court also dismissed the undue influence claim, finding no evidence of coercion.

The court admitted the will to proof in solemn form and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The court will hear the parties on the question of costs and directions for the determination of outstanding claims.

Legal representatives: Patrick Lyttle KC and Rory McNamee (instructed by Mallon & Mallon) for the defendants.

Judicial Panel: Humphreys J.

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NICh 12