Judgment: 2015-02-23 · Court archive

Supreme Court removes Rabbitte’s liability for estate case costs

The court corrected the scope of injunctions over Italian real estate and ruled that neither Rabbitte nor the deceased’s estate would bear his costs of the proceedings.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Paul McCormack
  • Rinaldo Paolozzi (Plaintiff)
  • Silvio Rabbitte (Defendant)
  • Antonio Senezio
What

The court corrected the scope of injunctions over Italian real estate and ruled that neither Rabbitte nor the deceased’s estate would bear his costs of the proceedings.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The dispute concerned the administration of Senezio’s estate and two wills: an Irish will made in 2005 and an Italian will made in 2006. The plaintiffs, Paul McCormack and Rinaldo Paolozzi, were the surviving executors named in the Irish will. The High Court had found that Senezio was domiciled in Ireland when he made the Italian will and when he died in February 2007. It held that movable assets outside Ireland fell to be dealt with under Irish law, while two Italian properties would devolve under Italian law.

The Supreme Court allowed Silvio Rabbitte’s appeal in part, replacing the High Court’s costs orders against and in his favour. It ruled that he was not liable for any of the plaintiffs’ costs and could not recover his own costs from the estate of Antonio Senezio. The court also corrected the wording of injunctions so they did not extend to immovable assets outside Ireland.

The dispute concerned the administration of Senezio’s estate and two wills: an Irish will made in 2005 and an Italian will made in 2006. The plaintiffs, Paul McCormack and Rinaldo Paolozzi, were the surviving executors named in the Irish will. The High Court had found that Senezio was domiciled in Ireland when he made the Italian will and when he died in February 2007. It held that movable assets outside Ireland fell to be dealt with under Irish law, while two Italian properties would devolve under Italian law.

Rabbitte had counterclaimed for the Irish probate grant to be revoked and for the Italian will to be admitted to probate. He abandoned that counterclaim on the twentieth day of the High Court trial, which lasted 25 days. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs succeeded in having the counterclaim dismissed, but did not obtain injunctions over Italian immovable property.

The High Court had ordered Rabbitte to pay one third of the plaintiffs’ party-and-party costs, subject to a set-off for three hearing days of his costs. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered findings by the trial judge that Rabbitte had not fully disclosed information about the estate’s assets, had not fully cooperated with the executors, and had intermeddled in estate assets. The Supreme Court found those actions had necessitated the proceedings, but concluded Rabbitte should not have to pay any part of the plaintiffs’ costs. It also rejected his request to have his own costs paid from the estate.

The court amended the injunctions against both defendants. They continue to cover movable estate assets outside Ireland, but exclude immovable assets located there. The plaintiffs remain entitled to have their proceedings costs, to the extent not otherwise covered, paid from the estate on a solicitor-and-client basis.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review