W. v M. (APUM)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application under the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 regarding the approval of an Amended Scheme of Arrangement related to a declaration of trust dated 18th July, 1997. The Plaintiff filed an amended special summons against Defendant M, a person of unsound mind defended by her court-appointed guardian B, and Defendant D. The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of M to approve variations to the trust document pursuant to section 24 of the Act of 2009. The Amended Scheme of Arrangement proposes specific substitutions and clarifications to the trust provisions concerning the beneficial interests of C and D and the disposition of the trust fund upon their deaths.

Several affidavits were filed in support of the application, including those of the Plaintiff, B, D, and the Plaintiff’s financial adviser. Irish Life produced the full file related to the policy and trust document pursuant to a court order. The Revenue Commissioners, after reviewing the pleadings and additional information, decided not to oppose the application to vary the trust on the basis that it was not substantially motivated by tax avoidance, although they reserved the right to seek their legal costs.

Defendant M, who lacks capacity, has not been made a ward of court but is defended by her guardian B, appointed by the court for these proceedings. The Plaintiff is the personal representative of C and is deemed an appropriate person to bring the application under section 24.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction under section 24 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 to approve the Amended Scheme of Arrangement varying the trust document on behalf of M, a person of unsound mind.
2. Whether the proposed variations to the trust document are for the benefit of M and any other relevant persons entitled to the trust fund.
3. Whether the Court can approve the scheme in the absence of explicit assent by all beneficiaries, particularly minors and M, who lacks capacity.
4. The procedural correctness of naming a person of unsound mind as a defendant and the appointment of a guardian to defend on their behalf.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first determined that the trust in question qualifies as a "relevant trust" under section 23 of the Act of 2009 and that the Plaintiff is an appropriate person to bring the application under section 24. The Court examined whether all beneficially interested persons, excluding M who lacks capacity, had assented to the Amended Scheme of Arrangement. It found that the known beneficiaries who could assent—D, B, and A—had done so, and that the ultimate beneficiaries of M’s estate were likely to be these individuals.

The Court addressed evidential difficulties about the ultimate disposition of the trust fund, concluding that the probability was that M would die testate leaving the residue to B and D, both consenting to the scheme. The Court rejected the possibility that minor grandchildren were "other relevant persons" entitled to consideration under section 24(4), concluding that the variations were for the benefit of M alone.

In considering M’s incapacity, the Court noted the absence of wardship and enduring power of attorney but found no jurisdiction to compel disclosure of M’s will. The Court accepted the position of the Revenue Commissioners who did not oppose the application on tax avoidance grounds but reserved the right to seek costs.

Applying the legal principles, including the reasoning in In re C.L., the Court found that the Amended Scheme of Arrangement was for M’s benefit and, by extension, for any other relevant persons. The Court also addressed procedural issues, correcting the naming of M as a defendant by appointing B as guardian to defend. It held that minors did not need to be joined or represented by guardians ad litem.

The Court concluded that it was appropriate to approve the Amended Scheme of Arrangement, subject to minor drafting clarifications and exclusion of an unnecessary variation concerning spouses of children of the Settlors.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to APPROVE the Amended Scheme of Arrangement pursuant to section 24(4) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, with specified drafting amendments for clarity and exclusion of an unnecessary class inclusion.

The direct effect of this decision is to legally sanction the variations to the trust document, giving effect to the expressed wishes of M despite her incapacity. The Court’s approval enables the trust to operate with the revised terms as set out in the appended clause. No broader precedent was established beyond the application of section 24 in these circumstances, and the Court’s approach respects the procedural protections for persons of unsound mind and minors without requiring wardship or guardianship appointments beyond what was necessary.