The High Court made no order as to costs after a will construction dispute between executor Andrew Shannon and beneficiary Henry Shannon. Each party must pay its own costs.
In a judgment delivered on 19 July 2019, Mr Justice Michael MacGrath considered costs following an earlier ruling on 12 April 2019. That ruling found that a specific devise to Henry Shannon comprised lands in Folios 22769 and 60662, County Cork, and that the will was not void for uncertainty. The court had accepted the construction advanced by Henry Shannon.
Henry Shannon sought his costs from Andrew Shannon under the general rule that costs follow the event. He argued that the proceedings were delayed, were brought only after he had started Circuit Court proceedings to have the estate administered, and had chiefly stood to benefit Andrew Shannon. He also cited the expense of defending the case and the executor’s failure, as he saw it, to inform him of his entitlement or promptly obtain probate.
Andrew Shannon said he had acted properly as executor and brought the case in good faith to obtain guidance on the will. He argued that costs should be paid from the estate, but not from the residue, which he said would substantially deprive him of a benefit as residual legatee. He also relied on the will drafter’s opinion that the testator intended some real estate to pass to him. That opinion was described in the judgment as extrinsic and was not admitted in evidence in the construction proceedings.
The judge considered principles governing costs in construction and probate cases, including whether litigation had reasonable grounds and was conducted in good faith, and whether costs should be met from the estate. He noted that the will’s validity had not been challenged, but its meaning had been disputed. The judge said the proceedings could be viewed as necessary to clarify the will and fulfil the executor’s duty.
The judgment also weighed the parties’ circumstances and conduct. The judge described Andrew Shannon as a man of honest endeavour, while noting delay in bringing the case and that the construction he sought would have benefited him. Henry Shannon had succeeded on his interpretation and had made efforts to bring matters to a head, though the judge noted he had entered the lands and carried out works before the issue was clarified.
The judge rejected each of the three cost outcomes considered: ordering Andrew Shannon to pay both sides’ costs, paying both parties’ costs from the estate, or charging estate costs against specific assets. He concluded that none would be just in the circumstances. The order was that each party bear its own costs.