Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Apr 22
10:25
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Feb 02
Bunny got married late in life to the younger Sally who is a daughter of Aubrey Brabazon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A dispute between a mother and her three daughters over the multi-million euro estate of the late well known horse trainer and jockey Bunny Cox has returned before the High Court.
The case concerns Sally Cox, widow of John Richard Cox, known as Bunny, and her daughters, Jennifer, Suzanne and Michelle.
The daughters claim undue influence in the transfer to joint ownership of Mr Cox's lands at Lisnawilly, Dundalk, Co Louth, to his wife some months before his death, aged 81, in January 2006.
Sean Sheehan, the solicitor who effected the joint ownership deed, told the court the property, which a number of developers have been interested in, is worth an estimated €30m.
In a 1991 will, Mr Cox left the estate to his wife and, after their son Richard was provided for, the daughters were to get the residue. However, the daughters claim it was always their father's intention that they should all share in it.
In March 2005, Mr and Mrs Cox signed a joint ownership deed for their home and lands.
In June that year, a new will was drawn up in which the daughters were to get 10pc each of the land with 20pc held on trust for Richard. Mr Cox was seriously ill with cancer for more than a year before his death.
Mrs Cox argues the new will was signed in circumstances where her husband did not have mental capacity due to the "potent medication" he was on.
The case first came before the court in 2018 when a court-appointed administrator sought to have set aside the deed creating joint ownership, of March 2005.
The case was settled in 2018. But because of problems over the implementation of the settlement, it was re-entered and the hearing resumed before Mr Justice Denis McDonald.
Daily Digest Newsletter
Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan's exclusive take on the day's news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.
Enter your Email Address
Sign Up
Read More
Ex-councillor backs up claims of intimidation and bullying levelled at Fine Gael’s West Cork cadre
Revealed: The counties that are clamping down on Airbnb rentals… and the ones that aren’t
EU split over ‘blackmail’ as Putin stops gas to Poland and Bulgaria
Mrs Cox told Louis McEntaggart SC, for the administrator, that once the joint ownership deed was signed in March 2005, both she and her husband were of the belief that there would be no need for a further will. However, they were informed the children could challenge the will under Section 117 of the Succession Act relating to adequate provision for children.
Mrs Cox, who is representing herself in the case, said she believed the joint ownership deed was in effect the same as the will in which everything would go to her upon his death.
Her daughter Suzanne told the court she had taken over her father's role as trainer in the years before his death but her mother did not want that. Problems began when Suzanne's partner was put up as a jockey in a race with one of the Cox horses.
Suzanne said her mother objected to this and there were "ructions" but said she had cleared it first with her father.
She said her father's training licence was ultimately transferred to her but she said they had "an awful job" getting her mother to sign it as well.
She said her father made it clear that he wanted to provide each of his children with a farm while they were still young.
Michelle Cox, the youngest of the children, told the court she looked after her father's post/administrative work and first became aware of the joint ownership transfer to her mother when she came across a cheque book in both her parents’ names.
Michelle said when she asked her father about this, he said it was because he was having trouble with his hand "and went off mumbling saying 'I hope I can trust her'".
She said that she also came across the 1991 will and thought it strange as it was "against everything our father made us believe".
She spoke with her sisters and they approached their mother about it as their father was in hospital. "She (mother) actually grabbed the pen and said what would you like me to write. Jenny was saying don't be so ridiculous you cannot change someone else's will".
Michelle and Jennifer drove to Louth County Hospital where they found their father on the phone to their mother in a distressed state, she said.
Their father kept saying it (the 1991 will) was not what he wanted, she said. He said it was "an old farmer's will".
They eventually calmed their father down and left. They returned a few days later when their father said he would "make everything right".
The case resumes on Friday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A dispute between a mother and her three daughters over the multi-million euro estate of the late well known horse trainer and jockey Bunny Cox has returned before the High Court.
The case concerns Sally Cox, widow of John Richard Cox, known as Bunny, and her daughters, Jennifer, Suzanne and Michelle.
The daughters claim undue influence in the transfer to joint ownership of Mr Cox's lands at Lisnawilly, Dundalk, Co Louth, to his wife some months before his death, aged 81, in January 2006.
Sean Sheehan, the solicitor who effected the joint ownership deed, told the court the property, which a number of developers have been interested in, is worth an estimated €30m.
In a 1991 will, Mr Cox left the estate to his wife and, after their son Richard was provided for, the daughters were to get the residue. However, the daughters claim it was always their father's intention that they should all share in it.
In March 2005, Mr and Mrs Cox signed a joint ownership deed for their home and lands.
In June that year, a new will was drawn up in which the daughters were to get 10pc each of the land with 20pc held on trust for Richard. Mr Cox was seriously ill with cancer for more than a year before his death.
Mrs Cox argues the new will was signed in circumstances where her husband did not have mental capacity due to the "potent medication" he was on.
The case first came before the court in 2018 when a court-appointed administrator sought to have set aside the deed creating joint ownership, of March 2005.
The case was settled in 2018. But because of problems over the implementation of the settlement, it was re-entered and the hearing resumed before Mr Justice Denis McDonald.
Daily Digest Newsletter
Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan's exclusive take on the day's news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.
Enter your Email Address
Sign Up
Read More
Ex-councillor backs up claims of intimidation and bullying levelled at Fine Gael’s West Cork cadre
Revealed: The counties that are clamping down on Airbnb rentals… and the ones that aren’t
EU split over ‘blackmail’ as Putin stops gas to Poland and Bulgaria
Mrs Cox told Louis McEntaggart SC, for the administrator, that once the joint ownership deed was signed in March 2005, both she and her husband were of the belief that there would be no need for a further will. However, they were informed the children could challenge the will under Section 117 of the Succession Act relating to adequate provision for children.
Mrs Cox, who is representing herself in the case, said she believed the joint ownership deed was in effect the same as the will in which everything would go to her upon his death.
Her daughter Suzanne told the court she had taken over her father's role as trainer in the years before his death but her mother did not want that. Problems began when Suzanne's partner was put up as a jockey in a race with one of the Cox horses.
Suzanne said her mother objected to this and there were "ructions" but said she had cleared it first with her father.
She said her father's training licence was ultimately transferred to her but she said they had "an awful job" getting her mother to sign it as well.
She said her father made it clear that he wanted to provide each of his children with a farm while they were still young.
Michelle Cox, the youngest of the children, told the court she looked after her father's post/administrative work and first became aware of the joint ownership transfer to her mother when she came across a cheque book in both her parents’ names.
Michelle said when she asked her father about this, he said it was because he was having trouble with his hand "and went off mumbling saying 'I hope I can trust her'".
She said that she also came across the 1991 will and thought it strange as it was "against everything our father made us believe".
She spoke with her sisters and they approached their mother about it as their father was in hospital. "She (mother) actually grabbed the pen and said what would you like me to write. Jenny was saying don't be so ridiculous you cannot change someone else's will".
Michelle and Jennifer drove to Louth County Hospital where they found their father on the phone to their mother in a distressed state, she said.
Their father kept saying it (the 1991 will) was not what he wanted, she said. He said it was "an old farmer's will".
They eventually calmed their father down and left. They returned a few days later when their father said he would "make everything right".
The case resumes on Friday.
Show More
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case - and I have no idea, and obviously it's none of my business, this is a very sad outcome for the family of a man whom I liked and greatly respected in my youth. A very nice man and one of the finest amateur riders in Irish racing history, Cheltenham Festival winners for Vincent O'Brien and Dan Moore among his career highlights.
Money is truly the root of all evil,it divides brothers,sisters and even parents.
Surely they could have worked out something to save the washing being done in public.
Surely they could have worked out something to save the washing being done in public.
I knew Sally when she first married Bunny circa 1974 and this story does not surprise me.
Widow of horse trainer Bunny Cox denies fraud in €30m court row with daughters
Helen BruceBy Helen Bruce -30/04/2022
The widow of the late horse trainer and jockey Bunny Cox has denied committing fraud or exerting undue influence over a transfer worth €30million to her, which saw their daughters left with nothing during her lifetime.
Sally Cox told the High Court that she was deeply upset by accusations that she had been a bad mother, and that she now endured ‘animosity’ from the children she loved and who she was preparing to give a share of the inheritance to.
Jennifer, Suzanne and Michelle Cox claim their father John Richard Cox, known as Bunny, never intended to transfer all his €30million fortune to his wife – leaving them with nothing during her lifetime.
They believe he did not realise the significance of a transfer he made, putting his house and land at Lisnawilly, Dundalk, Co. Louth into joint ownership with his wife.
They said he had consistently expressed a wish to look after them after his death, and that he wanted them to have their share of his estate while they were young enough to enjoy it.
In an emotional address to the court, Mrs Cox said she had been accused of fraud ever since her husband’s death, ‘and now I am being accused of using undue influence and duress’ against him.
‘Alarmingly, I was also accused of being a bad mother, with the most appalling insinuation that Bunny was an irresponsible and stupid man to allow himself to fall in love with a woman with such bad qualities as I had, who was capable of fraud and bullying.’
Judge Denis McDonald heard that the deed of joint ownership was made in March 2005 when Mr Cox was aged 81, terminally ill with cancer and ‘vulnerable’. Sally Cox was in her 50s at the time. Mr Cox died in January 2006.
The case first came before the court in 2018 when a court appointed administrator sought to set aside the deed. The case was settled, but due to problems over the implementation of the settlement, it has returned to court again.
James McGowan SC, for the administrator, said: ‘This wasn’t just agricultural land. It was worth €30million, on the evidence, which conferred an immediate benefit [to Mrs Cox] of €15million, and €30million within less than a year of the transaction.’
He said Suzanne Cox had given evidence that her father was ‘under her mother’s thumb’ and Jennifer Cox had spoken of her mother’s ‘domineering’ personality. They said that as Bunny Cox grew more ill, he became unable to ‘put his foot down’.
Mr McGowan said a will drawn up by Mr Cox in June 2005 had bequeathed 50% to his wife, 20% to his son Richard and 10% each to his daughters. The court heard Mr Cox may have believed this was the same thing as he had agreed to in the transfer — but it was not, as following his death, the full estate would transfer to Mrs Cox. Mr McGowan said that Mr Cox was acting as if he had full control of his estate at the time of making the will, which he did not.
Mr McGowan told the judge that, legally, it was open to the court to presume that undue influence had been exerted over a donor if there was not independent evidence to the contrary.
‘Here we have a man who, in his dying days, decides against a background of expressing an intention to benefit his children, to exclude them entirely. We say you can have regard to that? He wanted to provide for them while they were young.’
Mr McGowan said Mr Cox’s first cousin, Diane Bell, had given evidence that she believed he did not trust his wife to look after the children financially after his death. He also said that Mr Cox had not had the benefit of any independent legal advice before he signed the transfer.
Mrs Cox has argued that the joint transfer should stand, and that the 2005 will was procured under duress by their daughters Michelle and Jennifer.
She said it was a radical departure from an earlier will, dated in 1991. That saw Mr Cox leaving the estate to his wife and, after their son Richard was provided for, the daughters were to get the residue. She claims the joint transfer was made by Mr Cox of his own free will.
Concluding the case, Mrs Cox told the court: ‘My main and primary concern was for the welfare of my terminally ill husband, to look after him to the best of my ability, and to make his final days as happy and peaceful as I could.’
She said she had always intended to put ‘matters in order’ and would do so ‘as soon as possible’ to look after her daughters and her son, whom she said has learning difficulties.
She said that a financial deal to free up those assets was imminent. She said she would have been better off from a tax perspective if she had inherited his estate under a will, rather than having the land transferred to her.
Mrs Cox said a family acquaintance was responsible for planting the idea of the transfer, which had resulted in the ‘serious rift between parents and children’.
She said she had been accused in court of having the potential to ‘squander’ any money left to her.
She responded: ‘I have managed to survive 16 and a half years since my husband died, with a millstone round my neck, virtually not able to conduct my business properly.’
Judge McDonald said he would reserve judgment in the case, to be delivered in October.
Helen BruceBy Helen Bruce -30/04/2022
The widow of the late horse trainer and jockey Bunny Cox has denied committing fraud or exerting undue influence over a transfer worth €30million to her, which saw their daughters left with nothing during her lifetime.
Sally Cox told the High Court that she was deeply upset by accusations that she had been a bad mother, and that she now endured ‘animosity’ from the children she loved and who she was preparing to give a share of the inheritance to.
Jennifer, Suzanne and Michelle Cox claim their father John Richard Cox, known as Bunny, never intended to transfer all his €30million fortune to his wife – leaving them with nothing during her lifetime.
They believe he did not realise the significance of a transfer he made, putting his house and land at Lisnawilly, Dundalk, Co. Louth into joint ownership with his wife.
They said he had consistently expressed a wish to look after them after his death, and that he wanted them to have their share of his estate while they were young enough to enjoy it.
In an emotional address to the court, Mrs Cox said she had been accused of fraud ever since her husband’s death, ‘and now I am being accused of using undue influence and duress’ against him.
‘Alarmingly, I was also accused of being a bad mother, with the most appalling insinuation that Bunny was an irresponsible and stupid man to allow himself to fall in love with a woman with such bad qualities as I had, who was capable of fraud and bullying.’
Judge Denis McDonald heard that the deed of joint ownership was made in March 2005 when Mr Cox was aged 81, terminally ill with cancer and ‘vulnerable’. Sally Cox was in her 50s at the time. Mr Cox died in January 2006.
The case first came before the court in 2018 when a court appointed administrator sought to set aside the deed. The case was settled, but due to problems over the implementation of the settlement, it has returned to court again.
James McGowan SC, for the administrator, said: ‘This wasn’t just agricultural land. It was worth €30million, on the evidence, which conferred an immediate benefit [to Mrs Cox] of €15million, and €30million within less than a year of the transaction.’
He said Suzanne Cox had given evidence that her father was ‘under her mother’s thumb’ and Jennifer Cox had spoken of her mother’s ‘domineering’ personality. They said that as Bunny Cox grew more ill, he became unable to ‘put his foot down’.
Mr McGowan said a will drawn up by Mr Cox in June 2005 had bequeathed 50% to his wife, 20% to his son Richard and 10% each to his daughters. The court heard Mr Cox may have believed this was the same thing as he had agreed to in the transfer — but it was not, as following his death, the full estate would transfer to Mrs Cox. Mr McGowan said that Mr Cox was acting as if he had full control of his estate at the time of making the will, which he did not.
Mr McGowan told the judge that, legally, it was open to the court to presume that undue influence had been exerted over a donor if there was not independent evidence to the contrary.
‘Here we have a man who, in his dying days, decides against a background of expressing an intention to benefit his children, to exclude them entirely. We say you can have regard to that? He wanted to provide for them while they were young.’
Mr McGowan said Mr Cox’s first cousin, Diane Bell, had given evidence that she believed he did not trust his wife to look after the children financially after his death. He also said that Mr Cox had not had the benefit of any independent legal advice before he signed the transfer.
Mrs Cox has argued that the joint transfer should stand, and that the 2005 will was procured under duress by their daughters Michelle and Jennifer.
She said it was a radical departure from an earlier will, dated in 1991. That saw Mr Cox leaving the estate to his wife and, after their son Richard was provided for, the daughters were to get the residue. She claims the joint transfer was made by Mr Cox of his own free will.
Concluding the case, Mrs Cox told the court: ‘My main and primary concern was for the welfare of my terminally ill husband, to look after him to the best of my ability, and to make his final days as happy and peaceful as I could.’
She said she had always intended to put ‘matters in order’ and would do so ‘as soon as possible’ to look after her daughters and her son, whom she said has learning difficulties.
She said that a financial deal to free up those assets was imminent. She said she would have been better off from a tax perspective if she had inherited his estate under a will, rather than having the land transferred to her.
Mrs Cox said a family acquaintance was responsible for planting the idea of the transfer, which had resulted in the ‘serious rift between parents and children’.
She said she had been accused in court of having the potential to ‘squander’ any money left to her.
She responded: ‘I have managed to survive 16 and a half years since my husband died, with a millstone round my neck, virtually not able to conduct my business properly.’
Judge McDonald said he would reserve judgment in the case, to be delivered in October.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539