Former diplomat’s civil partner loses challenge to will

A man’s challenge to a will made by his late partner, a former diplomat, has been rejected by the High Court.

In their first challenge of its type to come before the High Court since the introduction of civil partnership laws, Said Laaser contested a will of the late Brian Earls, Ovoca Road, Dublin 8, executed hours before his death on July 5th, 2013.

In that will, Mr Laaser was left 50 per cent of Mr Earls’s assets in accordance weith his statutory entitlements under the civil partnership laws but had done “much better” in another will made months earlier made by Mr Earls, the court heard.

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said he was satisfied the disputed will was properly executed.

It was important to state there was “no attempt by the defendants to deprive Ms Laaser of his interest in the estate of the deceased”, he said.

The evidence showed the late Mr Earls was anxious “to make fair and proper provisions” for Mr Laaser who, “by no stretch of the imagination” , could be described “as being shut out of the will”.

Before his death, the late Mr Earls was “well enough to know what he was doing” and this was not a case where any concerns about the execution of the will were warranted, he added.

The will was executed and witnessed by three members of the deceased’s family hours before his death at a Dublin hospital, the court heard.

Mr Laaser, who represented himself, had argued the execution of the will was suspicious and alleged it was signed in his absence. Mr Earls was so ill at the time he was unable to sign the document and instead marked it with an ‘x’, he said.

Mr Laaser had brought proceedings against the executors of the disputed will — Maurice Earls, brother of Brian Earls, and his brother in law, William Early.

Opposing the action, the executors said the will clearly and accurately reflected Brian Earls’ wishes and he was fully aware of its contents.

In the will, Mr Earls left half of his assets, including his Dublin home and monies in various accounts to Mr Laaser, which reflected the latter’s statutory rights under the civil partnership laws.

The remainder of the assets were divided among Mr Earls’ two sisters and his brother.

Mr Earls, who died of a complication while being treated for cancer, also left a cash sum of €30,000 to a friend in Armenia, and a number of other items, including rugs, books and his personal writings, to his siblings.

The court was told the disputed will differed from one executed by Mr Earls in March 2013 in which Mr Laaser had done “much better”, Brian Spierin SC, with Mark O’Riordan BL, for the exceutors said.

In the March will, the house and the monies in the accounts were left to Mr Laaser.

Maurice Earls said, while his brother was only able to make a mark rather than sign the will, he “knew exactly what he was doing” and what was contained in the will.

His brother had wanted to make provision for his family members as well as wanting to take care of Mr Laaser, he said.

The family had regarded their brother’s 2012 civil partnership with Mr Laaser as “something positive” and he had been included in many family events and occasions such as birthday parties, Mr Earls said.

Following the ruling, Mr Laaser said he intended to appeal.