The High Court has refused to dismiss a challenge to a will despite finding that the plaintiff allowed the case to lie dormant for more than seven years and that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable.
In a judgment delivered on 15 March 2022, Mr Justice Dignam ruled that the balance of justice “slightly favours” allowing the proceedings to continue. He rejected the defendant’s application to dismiss the claim under the court rules and its inherent jurisdiction, and also refused to vacate a lis pendens registered against the deceased’s lands.
The underlying case concerns a will executed on 16 January 2012 by Frank Haughey, who died on 13 May 2013. The plaintiff, Patrick Bergin, challenges the will on allegations that Haughey lacked testamentary capacity and acted under the defendant’s duress or undue influence. The defendant, Shane McGuinness, is executor and beneficiary under the disputed will. Bergin is executor and beneficiary under an earlier will dated 29 April 2004. Those allegations have not been decided in this application.
The proceedings began in February 2014. The judge treated the plaintiff’s registration of the lis pendens on 4 April 2014 as the last step for the purpose of considering delay, while expressly not deciding whether it legally counted as a step in the proceedings. The defendant’s dismissal motion issued on 20 September 2021. The plaintiff delivered a statement of claim on 17 February 2022, after the motion was brought.
The plaintiff relied on settlement discussions, the death of the defendant’s solicitor in 2017 and the Covid-19 pandemic to explain the delay. The judge accepted that these matters excused short periods, but found they did not account for the prolonged inactivity. The plaintiff had taken no steps to progress the case during much of the period and had not remained in contact with his former solicitors.
The court noted that the defendant had not claimed that witnesses were unavailable, that his memory had materially faded, or that a fair trial was at risk. It considered that contemporaneous documents were likely to assist key professional witnesses. The defendant’s own failure to use procedural mechanisms to advance the case also weighed against dismissal. The judge nevertheless recognised general prejudice from delay and the effect of the unresolved proceedings on administration of the estate.
The ruling addressed only whether the claim should be dismissed for delay; it did not decide the will challenge. The court declined to give case-management directions because the plaintiff had separately applied to remit the matter to the Circuit Court. If it is not remitted, the case should return to court for directions. The judge warned that the balance had been finely assessed and could shift if further delay occurs.