A seven-year legal battle by a woman against two older siblings over allegedly not getting her full quarter share of their father’s IR£243,000 (€308,000) estate after his death 36 years ago has been halted by the Supreme Court.
Catríona Cunniffe was aged 17 and the youngest of four children of her widowed father Patrick Joseph Cunniffe, a farmer of Lisdeligney, Killimor, Ballinasloe, Co Galway, when he died, without having made a will, in 1987.
A panel of three Supreme Court judges, in a recently published determination, said Ms Cunniffe had not met the criteria for it to hear a further appeal after the Court of Appeal last year dismissed her appeal over the High Court’s rejection of her case.
The admitted facts did not support the proposed grounds of appeal and no matter of general public importance had been raised, they said. “The interests of justice are not served by any further hearings in this litigation.”
That conclusion, they added, was further borne out by the fact that the proceedings related to the estate of a person who died in 1987; that Ms Cunniffe had reached the age of majority in 1988; and where distributions had been made, and accepted, in the administration of the estate up to 2004.
In her proceedings against Michael Cunniffe and Martina Whyte, Catríona Cunniffe, in addition to claiming she had not received her full entitlement from the estate, alleged they had reneged on an agreement entitling her to reside for as long as she wanted in the former family home at Lisdeligney, as a result of which she allegedly suffered personal injury.
The net value of the estate was £243,870 with most of it comprising the residential farm, valued at IR£91,000, and IR£126,000 in deposits and financial investments.
Martina, aged 21 in 1987, was the eldest sibling and became administrator of the estate. Michael took over the running of the farm, assisted by his brother Padraic until the latter moved to London.
After her father’s death, Catríona completed her Leaving Cert and a college degree. Her fees, and an allowance during term time, were paid by Michael.
In 2016, she initiated High Court proceedings against Martina and Michael claiming, among other things, breach of duty, negligent misstatement and/or misrepresentation about the estate when she was a minor.
Following their father’s death, she claimed it was agreed within the family their father would have wished Michael, who had been running the farm for some years, to get the farm but she was always assured by Michael and Martina she would be entitled to full access to the family home.
She claimed she looked upon the family home as her primary residence until 2004 when she moved to Craughwell, Co Galway. It was claimed, over a long period of time, she felt less welcome in the house and Michael had disconnected the water supply about 2003 and removed the solid fuel range cooker, making the house uninhabitable.
A vegetarian, she also claimed Michael attacked her core values by hanging carcasses of butchered deer and sheep in the old back kitchen.
In their defences, Michael and Martina denied her claims and argued the case was statute barred, taken outside the applicable time limits.
Martina denied information concerning administration of the estate had been withheld and pleaded that her sister had never expressed disquiet or dissatisfaction about the administration of the estate before she took the proceedings.
Just before Martina married in 1995, a “deed of family settlement” was drawn up with a view to finalising the estate under which the farm was formally transferred to Michael and the other siblings agreed to disclaim their interest in their father’s estate in consideration of Michael paying each of them IR£30,000, it was claimed.
The High Court was told that under this deed and when their father’s investments had reached maturity, Catríona was paid a total sum of almost IR40,000. Catríona claimed she had no recollection of signing the document or the circumstances surrounding it and contended it was not a legal document.
The High Court ruled her claims in relation to misrepresentation and personal injury were statute-barred. It separately rejected her claims of fraud in relation to the signing of the deed of family settlement which she said she had never seen until 2019.
In dismissing her appeal against the High Court findings, the Court of Appeal warned litigants against using unqualified, unregulated and uninsured legal consultants holding themselves out as being professional ‘McKenzie friends’. These individuals “all too often give rise to false hopes”, potentially expose litigants to liability for the opposing party’s costs and, at a very minimum, waste money for those they purport to represent, the court said.
