The High Court has refused an application to replace two executrices of a Galway estate with an independent administrator, finding no special circumstances to justify overriding the deceased’s choice in his will.
John Casey applied under section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965 to have his sisters, Yvonne and Michelle Casey, passed over as executrices of their father Bernard Casey’s estate. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Stack on 10 November 2023. The court refused the application and said it would list the matter to hear submissions on the appropriate orders and costs. It did not determine costs in this judgment.
The will, made in 2015, left the family home in Salthill to Yvonne and Michelle in unequal shares, a commercial property on Quay Street in Galway to John, and an apartment in Clifden to Michelle. The residue was divided equally among the three siblings.
John argued that his sisters had delayed obtaining probate, failed to protect the Quay Street property and were unfit to act because they had misappropriated their parents’ money while acting as attorneys. The sisters denied the allegations. Justice Stack applied a high threshold for passing over executrices named in a valid will, concluding that serious grounds were required to displace the deceased’s choice.
The probate application was lodged shortly after the executor’s year. The judge found no undue delay, citing the complexity of the estate, the pandemic restrictions and steps taken to prepare the application. She also noted that John’s caveat and subsequent application had prevented the grant from issuing.
The Quay Street property had been let to a Costa Coffee operator, which stopped paying rent after the first COVID-19 lockdown and brought separate proceedings claiming the lease had ended. The judge did not decide the tenant’s liability for rent, repairs or insurance. She found that the executrices’ handling of the property did not justify removing them, and that they had acted cautiously amid the dispute over their authority.
The court also rejected John’s claims that the sisters had misappropriated funds, including a €30,000 withdrawal after their father’s death and money said to have been spent on cars and care. The sisters accounted for the €30,000 as funds used for estate expenses. On payments for nursing and care, the affidavits conflicted; the court said the dispute could not be resolved in the Probate List without a fuller hearing or cross-examination. As John bore the burden of proving the allegation and had not sought cross-examination, the court rejected it as unproven. The judge made no finding against the sisters arising from those payments.
The judgment concluded that no impropriety or special circumstances had been shown. It said the executrices should be permitted to proceed with gathering and administering the estate.