The High Court has refused an application by Philip and Joan Davies to remove Marian Hutchinson as executrix of Daphne Conlon’s estate, finding that the evidence did not meet the high threshold for such a step at this time.
In a judgment delivered on 20 November 2017, Ms Justice O’Regan said the asserted conflicts were speculative and did not amount to the serious grounds or special circumstances required to remove an executor appointed under a will. The application was brought by special summons issued in May 2017.
The judge said the parties’ February 2016 agreement appeared to cover most of the complaints about the estate’s administration, including a dispute over legal costs. She found insufficient evidence that the agreement had ceased to be relevant. The evidence indicated that, if it ended under one of its conditions, that was because the beneficiaries did not approve or reject the accounts within the specified month. The court had no evidence showing when the agreement terminated, or a specific claim in the affidavits that it had been terminated.
The dispute followed a claim under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965 by the deceased’s estranged son. That case began in 2006 and was settled in 2010 for €92,500, including costs. The judgment records that the plaintiffs later complained about a bill of costs exceeding €306,000. The costs dispute was among the matters resolved by the 2016 agreement, which provided for payment of €135,000 in costs to the executrix.
The judge also noted that about €400,000 was distributed to the plaintiffs in late October 2017 after a dispute over whether payment would be conditional on resolving all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs had sought payment without prejudice to their claims.
Although refusing the removal application, Ms Justice O’Regan said she had difficulty accepting that the estate’s administration was complete. She pointed to the executrix’s failure to address interest that might have accrued on estate funds held from 2008 until about July 2017. She described the delays in completing the administration as “most unsatisfactory”.
The court refused the reliefs seeking removal of the executrix and appointment of another administrator. It said further orders or directions might be needed to resolve outstanding issues and scheduled a further hearing for submissions on appropriate orders under other parts of the summons. The judgment does not state what those further orders would be.