The High Court has revoked the limited grant held by solicitor Donal O’Sullivan in proceedings brought by Donal Moore against the estate of his late mother, Mary Moore. It also clarified that a grant limited to “substantiating” proceedings provides a defendant to the claim but does not oblige that administrator to actively defend it.
Ms Justice Stack delivered the judgment on 1 November 2023. The application was made by O’Sullivan, who had been appointed administrator ad litem for the purpose of proceedings Moore intended to bring against the estate. The court said the grant did not authorise O’Sullivan to administer the estate or control its assets.
Moore’s claim rests on an alleged agreement with his mother that he would receive her real property in return for providing her with maintenance, care and support during her life. The judgment does not determine that claim. The judge had not seen the pleadings and described the intended relief as presumably an assent of real property in Moore’s favour.
Mary Moore died intestate in December 2016, leaving six children. Moore obtained a grant in 2017, but it was revoked after he decided to claim against the estate. In November 2018, the court gave O’Sullivan liberty to seek a grant limited to substantiating Moore’s proceedings. An initial grant issued in general terms and was later revoked; a replacement was issued in the limited terms required by the order.
O’Sullivan took steps in the litigation, including seeking particulars and bringing a motion to compel replies. The judge found that he had acted at the insistence of the beneficiaries and had not acted improperly. She concluded that an administrator appointed to substantiate proceedings is, in essence, a nominal defendant: the appointment allows the action to proceed and any determination to bind a general administrator if one is later appointed, but does not require active defence.
The court revoked O’Sullivan’s grant under section 27(2) of the Succession Act 1965. It said that if Moore wished to pursue his proceedings, he would need to cite the beneficiaries to take out a general grant or find another person willing to act. The court did not decide the underlying inheritance claim or make directions about extracting a new grant, which had already been issued in the required limited form.
O’Sullivan also sought directions concerning €53,707.41 transferred to him for the estate. The judge said an undertaking to hold the money on trust until a general grant is extracted, then transfer it and any interest to the personal representative, was likely sufficient. She did not make an order on the money or decide what obligations applied to funds Moore held. The matter was listed for final orders, costs and O’Sullivan’s remuneration.