The High Court has ordered the administrator of two estates to prepare full accounts after a prolonged family dispute over a farm, its sale proceeds and the beneficiaries’ entitlements. It also ruled that one beneficiary could not recover from the estate costs he incurred in connection with a separate inheritance claim.
Mr Justice Allen’s judgment, delivered on 25 February 2020, concerned the estates of J. D. and his wife, H. D. The court ordered son 2, the administrator of both estates, to provide a “true, full and perfect inventory and account” for each.
The farm was sold in August 2017 for €2.38 million before sale costs. But the estates had not been administered separately, and there were no adequate accounts showing receipts, liabilities or how the beneficiaries’ shares should be calculated. The parties proposed two formulas for dividing the estates. The judge was not satisfied that either was appropriate, saying there was insufficient evidence to decide between them and that the calculations left out material matters, including H.’s legal right share and other estate assets and income.
The dispute involved earlier proceedings brought by son 1 under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965, alleging that his father had failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for him. Those proceedings were settled in 2014, with son 1 to receive €150,000, other entitlements and agreed costs. Son 3 had monitored the claim and sought to recover his own legal costs from the estate, although he had not become a party to those proceedings.
The judge ruled that son 3 was not entitled to have those costs paid from J. D.’s estate. He also said at least €118,695 in legal fees connected with son 1’s proceedings had been paid to the administrator’s solicitors without agreement or taxation, and ordered that money returned to the estate account until the fees were taxed or agreed.
The judgment also addressed the removal of cattle and machinery from the farm by son 3. The judge found that removing the herd breached the 2016 settlement agreement. Son 3 was accountable to the estate for the full value of stock and machinery, and for any fodder he removed, but the evidence did not allow the court to assess the amount owed. The judge also said son 3 could be required to justify the valuation he relied on.
The court made no order on several disputed costs applications. It directed that neither party could recover from the other, or retain from J. D.’s estate, any sum for costs of or incidental to the proceedings. It granted liberty to apply. The judgment did not determine the final division of the estate assets.