The High Court has remitted to the Circuit Court a dispute over an agreement to sell property from a deceased man’s estate and distribute the proceeds. The order moves the proceedings to the Eastern Circuit sitting in County Louth; it does not decide whether the defendant breached the agreement or what the plaintiff may ultimately recover.
The plaintiff, Mary Breidegam, seeks specific performance of a March 2008 settlement agreement, or damages instead. The agreement provided for the sale of the property known as Weirhope House, with the net estate divided between the defendant, Daniel J. Reilly, and nine branches of the deceased’s family. The judgment records that the plaintiff’s share was five per cent of the net estate after specified deductions.
Reilly applied to remit the case from the High Court, arguing that the claim concerned the sale of land valued at less than €3 million and was within Circuit Court jurisdiction. The only valuation evidence before the court put the property’s market value at between €685,000 and €700,000. Breidegam did not produce evidence challenging that valuation.
She opposed the transfer, saying the case concerned a will and estate distribution, and that her damages could exceed the Circuit Court’s monetary limit. Her solicitor also argued she was jointly and severally liable for €185,924.12 in costs from the earlier probate proceedings, had paid €77,236.23, and should be reimbursed. Those were submissions, not findings that she was liable for or had paid those amounts.
Justice Power said the will’s validity had already been determined in a 2008 High Court order and was not at issue in the current proceedings. She found the specific performance claim concerned an agreement for the sale of land and could have been brought in the Circuit Court.
The judge also concluded that the pleaded case did not include a claim to recover all the probate costs. She found no evidence supporting the asserted joint liability or payment, and said the 2008 settlement and order did not give the plaintiff a right to recover all those costs. Even taking the claim at its highest, she was not satisfied that the plaintiff could reasonably contemplate damages beyond Circuit Court jurisdiction.
The court found no special circumstances making it reasonable to keep the case in the High Court. It allowed Reilly’s application and directed that the proceedings be remitted under section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. The underlying claims and defences remain to be determined.