The High Court dismissed Thomas Higgins’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that there was no prima facie case of misconduct by solicitor Alana Nolan in connection with the estate of John Higgins. The court ordered costs in Ms Nolan’s favour.
The appeal concerned the tribunal’s decision of 27 October 2011. Higgins, the deceased’s son and sole executor, had made about 30 complaints about Nolan’s conduct while she acted for two beneficiaries, Catherine Kelly and Dolores Conroy. The tribunal had rejected the complaints, finding they had been rebutted, did not disclose potential misconduct, or lacked supporting evidence.
The estate was governed by a will dated 22 October 2009, which divided it equally among John Higgins’s nine children after debts and expenses. A handwritten document later emerged purporting to leave the house to Thomas Higgins. The judgment says that document was disregarded, and administration of the estate resumed.
Higgins alleged that Nolan’s firm held estate money, misrepresented itself to Royal Liver Assurance as representing the executor, caused confusion and delay, and was discourteous in correspondence. He also queried payments of €504.25 and €5.71 relating to a policy.
Nolan argued that the appeal was outside the statutory 21-day period. The court said it appeared to be out of time, but dismissed it on the merits as well.
The court found that money held by Nolan’s firm for the estate had been disclosed to the executor’s solicitor and transferred to that firm on 15 November 2011. It said the €965.56 transferred related to a different Royal Liver policy: the payment had gone to Catherine Kelly in May 2010, before Nolan’s firm was instructed. The court noted that a form incorrectly identified Kelly as executor, but found the error did not implicate Nolan.
The court also found that Nolan had made clear to Royal Liver that her firm represented beneficiaries, not the executor. It found no evidence she caused the communication difficulties alleged by Higgins and said she was entitled to contact the insurer for her clients. The €504.25 policy had been paid to Kelly, whom the judgment described as its proposer and legal owner. The court found nothing in the correspondence to support the complaint that Nolan had been discourteous, argumentative or condescending.
The court agreed with the tribunal that there was no misconduct by Nolan and dismissed the appeal. The judgment records no separate ruling on the alleged €5.71 premium beyond its discussion of the complaints.