The High Court has refused an executor’s application to allow the four adult children of a deceased man to attend the full in-camera hearing of a woman’s claim for provision from his estate as an alleged cohabitant.
Mr Justice Twomey ruled on 2 June 2021 that the children could not attend the hearing of the claim under section 194 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The court said they could attend when called to give evidence, as both sides accepted they might be, but that did not entitle them to hear the applicant’s evidence beforehand.
The applicant, Ms D, claims she was in an “intimate and committed relationship” with the deceased, Mr T, and was a qualified cohabitant. The executor, Mr B, opposed the claim on behalf of the estate. The judgment records that Mr B said the children were best placed to challenge Ms D’s account and that he would be better able to defend the claim if they heard her evidence and could provide instructions. The children disputed that she had a relationship with their father and stood to benefit financially if her claim failed.
The court considered whether an exception to the statutory in-camera rule applied. It found that section 40(5) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which allows a party to be accompanied in court with the court’s approval, did not cover the requested attendance of four non-parties to assist the defence. The judge also distinguished earlier cases involving disclosure of material after in-camera proceedings and a separate case where non-parties were allowed to attend for a public-interest research purpose.
The judgment found no evidence that excluding the children would prevent Mr B from receiving a fair hearing. He was a solicitor, had legal representation, could call the children as witnesses after Ms D gave evidence, and accepted that he could give first-hand evidence about the central issue. The trial judge would assess any evidence from the children that disputed or contradicted Ms D’s account.
The court said the privacy of the parties, including Ms D, outweighed the claimed advantage of having the children present. It concluded that creating a further exception to the in-camera rule was a matter for the Oireachtas. The ruling concerned only attendance at the hearing; the underlying section 194 claim was due to be heard on 8 June 2021, and this judgment did not decide whether Ms D was a qualified cohabitant or whether she would receive provision from the estate.