R (Proctor) v Hutton
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1978 |
| Date | 01 January 1978 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
Elderly widow living with her niece put all her money in a joint account in the names of herself and her niece - Whether undue influence would be presumed - Whether intention to make a gift.
On the 28th July, 1969, a lonely old widow aged 85, who had originally come from Portadown, ("the deceased") was brought back from Philadelphia, U.S.A., to Portadown by her niece ("the applicant"). The deceased, who had lived a friendless life in an apartment in Philadelphia, wanted to come home to Ireland and the applicant offered to give the deceased a home and to make her one of the family. The deceased, whose mind and memory had been affected while living alone in Philadelphia, seemed to settle down after the applicant assisted her, because she had someone in whom she could put confidence. While the applicant and the deceased were in America and after their return to Portadown, the deceased had repeatedly stated that she wished to give all her money to the applicant, but the applicant wanted the deceased to retain all her money while she was alive. The deceased nevertheless persisted, and on the 29th July, 1969, she opened a special investment account in the Portadown Branch of the Belfast Savings Bank in the joint names of herself and the applicant, the money in the account being declared to be payable to "either or survivor." On the 4th August, 1969, 13,813.11.0 was lodged to the credit of that account by way of transfer from the deceased's bank in Philadelphia. After the death of the deceased on the 15th August, 1969, her personal representative ("the administrator") claimed the money in the account as part of the deceased's estate, on the basis that at the time that the account was opened the relations between the deceased and the applicant had been such as to raise a presumption that the applicant had exercised undue influence over the deceased. The bank declined to pay the money out either to the administrator or to the applicant, and the disputed claim was referred to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies under s. 27 of the Trustees Savings Banks Act, 1969. The matter was heard by the Chief Registrar's deputy who held that by virtue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v Carroll
...IR 471 DELANEY EQUITY & LAW OF TRUSTS IN IRELAND (1996) 482 NORIAH V BIN OMAR 1929 AC 126 GREGG V KIDD 1956 IR 183 PROCTOR, R V HUTTON 1978 NI 139 GREALISH V MURPHY 1946 IR 35 O'RORKE V BOLINGBROKE 1876–1877 2 AC 814 HART V O'CONNOR 1985 AC 1000 ALLCARD V SKINNER 1887 36 CH 145 KEANE EQ......
-
M.C. and Another v F.C and Others
...BUS 2003 4 IR 459 QUINN (A MINOR) v MID WESTERN HEALTH BOARD & ANOR 2005 4 IR 1 CARROLL v CARROLL 1999 4 IR 241 R (PROCTOR) v HUTTON 1978 NI 139 INCHE NORIAH v SHAIK ALLIE BIN OMAR 1929 AC 127 ALLCARD v SKINNER 1887 36 CH D 145 CONTRACT LAW Undue influence Appeal against order setting as......
-
Bourke v O'Donnell & Governor & Company of the Bank of Ireland
...OF IRELAND DEFENDANTS WARD v MCMASTER & ORS 1985 IR 29 1988 IR 337 R (PROCTOR) v HUTTON (DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (NO 2) 1978 NI 139 MCGONIGLE v BLACK UNREP BARR 14.11.1988 1988/9/2612 CARROLL v CARROLL 1999 4 IR 241 2000 1 ILRM 210 1999/4/699 FOLEY v HILL & ORS 9 ER 1002 184......
-
Coomey [Legal Personal Representative of John Richard Cox] v Cox
...presumption really plays no part”. In making that observation, Barron J. cited the decision of Lowry L.C.J. in Reg. (Proctor) v. Hutton [1978] N.I. 139. In that case, a gift by an aunt to a niece was challenged on the grounds of presumed undue influence. However, the niece gave very clear a......