The High Court has refused an application by Marie Healy for permission to seek an independent administrator for her late mother’s estate, finding that the proposed claims against her brothers were not stateable on the evidence presented.
The application concerned the estate of Mary Dooley, who died in February 2020. Her will named her husband, Daniel, as executor, with sons Patrick and James as substitutes if he was unable or unwilling to act. Daniel died in 2021 before obtaining a grant. The court ruled that he had been willing to act, so Patrick and James did not become substituted executors under the will. The executor of Daniel’s estate was next entitled to apply, but had indicated an intention to renounce. The court said other eligible people could then apply under the relevant court rules.
Healy sought an administrator to pursue claims including an allegation that Patrick and James bought a Dublin property from the family company at an undervalue. The judge said there was “absolutely no basis” for the fraud allegation and no supporting evidence had been provided in this application. The court considered the company accounts, an offer of €800,000 for the property in 2012, a 2013 development appraisal of just over €900,000, and evidence of substantial later redevelopment costs. It concluded that the €900,000 sale price agreed in 2014 did not warrant further investigation on the material before it.
The court also said a claim to set aside the property transaction under company law could be brought by the company, through its liquidator, rather than by a shareholder or the estate’s representative. The liquidator had investigated the complaints and taken no proceedings. The judge found no basis in the application to remove the liquidator.
The judge said the evidence did not establish that the estate beneficially owned the 20% company shareholding registered in Mary Dooley’s name. A 2001 agreement appeared to provide for the shares to pass to Patrick and James after the surviving parent’s death. However, Daniel Dooley had instructed solicitors that the estate was entitled to a €65,890.74 interim distribution linked to the shareholding. The court said that discrepancy required further investigation, but did not justify appointing an independent representative, whose fees could further reduce the estate.
The application was refused. The court invited the parties to address whether any further order should be made or whether the matter should be adjourned to allow the family to agree who should act as the estate’s legal personal representative. The judgment did not make a final determination of entitlement to the distribution.