The High Court has refused an application to hear a probate case entirely in private, while ruling that material drawn from earlier family-law proceedings must remain protected when considered in the probate case.
The preliminary application concerned proceedings under section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965. S.M. seeks permission to apply for letters of administration over the estate of their adult child, P.M. The deceased’s separated spouse, S.L., had already applied for a grant of letters of administration intestate. The underlying dispute over who may seek the grant was not decided in this judgment.
S.M. argued that the case should be heard in camera because it substantially overlapped with family-law proceedings between the spouses, which had been held in private. S.L. took a neutral position on the application but provided legal submissions. The judgment records that the parties’ written submissions addressed the court’s common-law power to hear a civil case in private.
Ms Justice Butler said the section 27(4) application was not a matrimonial cause or matter covered by the relevant statutory exception. The court nevertheless has an inherent power to hear civil cases in private in exceptional circumstances, but the interests must be clear and the circumstances pressing. The judge found an interest in protecting the intimate evidence drawn from the earlier proceedings, but concluded that the circumstances did not justify holding the whole probate application in camera. Among the considerations were that the deceased had died, the spouse had not sought a private hearing, and there were no children of the marriage whose privacy or family life might be affected.
The court also rejected the argument that non-contentious probate proceedings could simply be heard in private because they were not ordinary litigation. The judgment says the High Court’s probate jurisdiction forms part of the administration of justice and is subject to the constitutional principle that justice is administered in public.
On the separate question of evidence, the judge ruled that section 40(6) and (7) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 allows the High Court, exercising its statutory probate jurisdiction, to receive documents, information and evidence from the earlier in-camera District and Circuit Court proceedings. The part of the hearing dealing with that material must itself be in camera, and the material must not later be published. The judge said this protection could, in practice, mean that much of the application is heard privately, while preserving the distinction between a public case and private handling of protected evidence.
The judgment does not decide who is entitled to seek administration of the estate. It addresses only the request for a private hearing and the treatment of evidence from the earlier family-law proceedings.