The High Court concluded that William Dunne was in a serious conflict of interest as personal representative of Cecil Dunne’s estate because he was also claiming possessory title to much of the estate’s land. The court found that conflict was a serious special circumstance justifying his removal. It did not decide whether his claim to the land would succeed.
The application was brought by nine of Cecil Dunne’s 14 children. They sought, among other relief, revocation of the grant of letters of administration issued to William Dunne in 2011. The judgment identifies the matter as an application about his role as personal representative; its concluding passage states the court’s conclusion that removal was justified.
The children’s underlying action alleges that the estate includes agricultural land at Moatfield and a dwelling house and adjacent property at Millicent Cross, Clane, County Kildare. They say William Dunne failed to administer the estate and distribute their shares. Those are pleaded claims, not findings determined in this application.
In his defence, William Dunne pleaded that he and the deceased’s widow, Eileen Dunne, had been in exclusive possession of the lands for at least 12 years and had acquired title by possession, including to the children’s shares. The court said the merits of that claim were for the trial judge at the full hearing, not for decision on this application.
The issue before Mr Justice Cregan was whether the claim created a conflict that warranted removing William Dunne as personal representative. The judge explained that the representative’s duty was to gather in estate assets and distribute them, while William Dunne claimed in his personal capacity that adverse possession defeated the other beneficiaries’ interests. If the estate challenged that claim, William Dunne would effectively have to act on both sides of a dispute with himself.
The judge also considered affidavit material from Cecil Dunne setting out grounds on which the estate could challenge the possession claim, including alleged acknowledgments of the children’s entitlement. He found there was sufficient evidence of a reasonable argument to contest it, while stressing that the claim itself might or might not succeed.
Relying on the standard that removal requires serious misconduct or serious special circumstances, the court found the conflict amounted to the latter. The judgment’s concluding section states that William Dunne’s removal was justified. It did not determine the children’s entitlement to the land, the validity of the adverse-possession claim, or the eventual administration and distribution of the estate.