The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal over the refusal to pause an order appointing an administrator for the estate of Celine Murphy, finding the appeal moot and bound to fail.
The court’s judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 27 July 2018, concerned an appeal by Majella Rippington, Shaun Rippington and Edel Banahan against an order made by the High Court’s Mr Justice Hedigan on 8 August 2012. That order refused a stay on an earlier order appointing solicitor Anne Stephenson as administrator pendente lite, pending proceedings over Murphy’s will.
Michael Cox and Mary Butler, the respondents, applied to strike out the appeal. The appellants did not attend the Court of Appeal hearing on 23 July 2018. The judgment records that Rippington had been told by email that the appeal would proceed later that day, but none of the appellants appeared to seek an adjournment or oppose the application.
The dispute arose after Murphy died in March 2011. Her siblings challenged a will dated 8 March 2011, alleging it was invalidly executed, that she lacked testamentary capacity and that she had been subject to undue influence. The High Court dismissed those claims and admitted the will to probate in solemn form. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against that decision in December 2017.
Separately, in July 2012, the High Court directed Stephenson to obtain a grant of administration without will annexed pendente lite, enabling her to gather the estate’s assets, pay debts and discharge a mortgage on a property Murphy owned. The appellants had notice, were represented and did not object, the judgment states. Stephenson carried out the work, and the grant was revoked in July 2014. The appellants were unsuccessful in a Supreme Court appeal against that revocation.
The appellants later sought an extension of time to appeal the 2012 administration order. The Court of Appeal refused that application in a judgment delivered in December 2017. Irvine J said that left no substantive appeal pending that could support a stay. The stay appeal had purpose only while the appellants had a prospect of challenging the underlying order.
The court also noted that the administration order had been fully carried out, so a stay at that stage would have no practical effect. It dismissed the appeal as moot and bound to fail. The court did not reconsider the merits of the will challenge or determine anew whether the original stay should have been granted.