The High Court has dismissed proceedings challenging a will and the grant of probate, ruling that the plaintiffs had no standing because success could bring them no tangible benefit.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy delivered the judgment on 4 April 2025. The plaintiffs had sought to have a will made on the day Edward Joseph Murphy died declared invalid and to have the probate grant recalled. The defendant, Gregory Olan Murphy, had obtained the grant in May 2020 and was named executor in the will.
The plaintiffs are involved in three Circuit Court cases with the defendant acting as executor. One concerns the first plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of an alleged agreement about a property in Kinsale, which she occupies with the second plaintiff. The other cases concern debts allegedly owed to the estate by the second and third plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs were not beneficiaries under the will and would not inherit if the estate were distributed on intestacy. The deceased’s two sons would be the beneficiaries in that event, and both supported the defendant’s application to dismiss the High Court proceedings.
The plaintiffs alleged that the will was not properly executed, that its signature was not the deceased’s, and, alternatively, that he lacked testamentary capacity or was unduly influenced. They said they had obtained handwriting reports supporting their forgery allegation, but had not exhibited the reports or provided an affidavit from the expert. The defendant relied on affidavits from the will’s witnesses, who said they saw the deceased sign and that he appeared to understand the will and be of sound mind.
The judge said it would be premature to dismiss the case on the basis that the challenge to the will was bound to fail. That did not mean the plaintiffs had presented a compelling or strong case. Instead, he found the decisive issue was standing: even if the will and probate grant were set aside, the plaintiffs would not benefit. Their request to have a nominee appointed as administrator could not give them an interest in the estate, and changing the person representing the estate in the Circuit Court cases was not a benefit the court could recognise for this purpose.
The judge also rejected the argument that public interest in proper will-making gave the plaintiffs standing. He said the authority they relied on concerned costs in a will challenge brought by a daughter who stood to benefit, not a general right for anyone to challenge a will.
The proceedings were dismissed under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court did not determine the will’s validity or decide whether the plaintiffs had brought the case for an improper purpose. The case was listed for mention on 11 April 2025 to address ancillary matters and costs.