The Court of Appeal has overturned an order removing William Dunne as administrator of his late father’s estate, finding that replacement was not necessary to ensure a fair determination of the dispute at this stage.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made in July 2015. That order declared that William Dunne was conflicted in his role, revoked his grant of administration and allowed solicitor David Osborne to seek a new grant. The Court of Appeal also set aside the personal costs order made against William Dunne for the motion. It left the parties to make submissions on what costs order should follow.
The estate dispute concerns about 62 acres of farmland known as Moatfield. The nine plaintiffs and William Dunne are siblings and are among the 14 children of Cecil Dunne, who died intestate in 1994. Their mother, Eileen Dunne, survived him and obtained administration of his estate but did not complete its administration before her death in 2010. The plaintiffs say they are each entitled to a one-42nd share in the land and that William Dunne failed to distribute their shares.
In his defence, William Dunne pleaded that the claims were time-barred and that he and his mother had acquired title through possession. The plaintiffs argued that these pleas put him in conflict as administrator because he could benefit if their claims failed. William Dunne said the issues could be decided in the existing proceedings and that removing him would add expense without changing who needed to be heard.
The Court of Appeal said an administrator may face a potential conflict where the outcome could benefit him personally, but that conflict alone does not require removal. In the absence of alleged serious misconduct, removal is warranted where the conflict could hinder a fair determination and a replacement would remove a meaningful disadvantage or prejudice.
The court considered the plaintiffs’ concern that William Dunne might not cooperate over estate documents speculative at this stage. It noted his stated intention to have the issues determined by the High Court and to administer the estate in accordance with its order. The court said the removal question could arise again if he failed to cooperate appropriately, including with discovery.
The appeal decision did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ shares were time-barred or whether William Dunne had acquired title by possession. Those substantive issues remain for the trial court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against both the removal order and the personal costs order.