The High Court has refused to strike out a claim by three sisters over the proceeds of their former family home and ordered that €135,000 be protected against dissipation while the proceedings continue.
Mr Justice Kennedy’s ruling on 19 March 2024 did not determine whether the sisters are entitled to a share. It addressed the defendant’s application to dismiss the case and the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. The judge said the claim raised issues requiring evidence and legal argument at trial.
The sisters claim that disclaimers used in administering their late father’s estate were forged or were not knowingly signed, and that their interests in the property were improperly transferred. The defendant, their sister, says the claim has no basis and is statute barred. The judgment records conflicting accounts of how the disclaimers were prepared and signed. In particular, the defendant later said she had printed the second plaintiff’s name on a disclaimer with that plaintiff’s authority; the second plaintiff denies giving permission.
The judge said there was a serious issue about which plaintiffs signed disclaimers and on what basis. He also found it arguable that the claim could overcome the limitation defence, including through alleged fraudulent concealment or equitable doctrines. He stressed that these were provisional assessments for the applications before him, not findings that fraud or forgery had occurred. The defendant’s application to dismiss the proceedings was refused.
On the injunction, the judge found sufficient risk of dissipation to justify limited relief, taking account of the plaintiffs’ difficulty getting responses to their enquiries and the disputed disclaimer evidence. The property sold for €665,562.40. The judge said an order over the full sale price would be inappropriate because the plaintiffs were not claiming the entire proceeds. He set the protected amount at €135,000, while allowing the defendant to invest in Irish real estate if she retains at least that amount in unencumbered equity in cash or other assets in Ireland. If that sum is represented by a property rather than cash held by her solicitors, they must notify the plaintiffs’ solicitor of the investment details within 14 days.
The judge gave the parties 14 days to try to agree the precise terms of the order. If they could not, he would settle them. The case was to return for directions, including on future conduct and costs. The judgment left the underlying ownership, disclaimer and limitation disputes for later determination.