The Supreme Court dismissed Patrick Reen’s appeals against orders concerning the estate of Donal Brendan O’Connell and proceedings over the will of Reen’s sister, Catherine Reen.
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 31 July 2014, the court held that Reen had no interest in O’Connell’s estate under the will or on intestacy that would entitle him to lodge a caveat. It said a person with a claim against an estate cannot use a caveat, which requires an interest in the estate itself. The court found no error in the High Court order setting aside Reen’s caveat.
Reen had said he had complaints about O’Connell’s work as a solicitor on his parents’ estates. Those complaints were his stated reason for lodging the caveat. The Supreme Court did not determine any potential claim against O’Connell’s estate; it said such a claim was distinct from an interest in the estate and made no comment on whether a claim could be brought.
Eugene O’Brien, who had also lodged a caveat against O’Connell’s estate, told the Supreme Court he would not pursue his appeal. The court said his appeal could be struck out. The High Court had set aside both caveats and awarded costs against Reen and O’Brien.
The court also dismissed Reen’s appeals concerning the estate of Catherine Reen. It upheld a limited administration order made under section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965, allowing Michael O’Connell, as personal representative of Donal O’Connell, to take steps to preserve assets and protect the liquor licence associated with Reen’s Bar in Berrings. The court stressed that the order was temporary and would last pending resolution of the dispute over Catherine Reen’s will.
It also upheld the order reconstituting the will proceedings in Michael O’Connell’s name. The court said that order enabled the proceedings to continue, where Reen’s challenge to his sister’s will and related issues could be heard. It said matters requiring a full hearing in the High Court could not be decided in this appeal.
Catherine Reen had appointed Donal O’Connell as executor and beneficiary under her 1997 will. Reen challenged the will, and the Supreme Court made no ruling on its validity. It dismissed Reen’s appeals from the orders under consideration.