The High Court struck out a claim by Padraig Gaffney over services he said he provided to his uncle in return for a promise that he would inherit the uncle’s farm.
The court held that the action could not proceed because James Faughnan, the named defendant, had no authority to represent the deceased’s estate when the proceedings began. It also ordered that a lis pendens registered by the plaintiff be vacated. The court did not decide whether the claim was time-barred.
Michael Gaffney died intestate on 15 April 2002. Padraig Gaffney issued a plenary summons against Faughnan on 15 April 2004, before Faughnan received a grant of administration. The grant was issued on 16 November 2004 to Faughnan as attorney for Patrick Gaffney, the deceased’s brother, and was limited to Patrick’s use and benefit until he obtained a grant himself.
In his claim, Padraig Gaffney alleged that he had rendered services during his uncle’s lifetime under an express or implied promise that the farm would be left to him. He argued that the uncle’s death without a will breached that agreement and that the estate’s administrator had failed to honour the promise. He sought specific performance, transfer of the land, damages and €90,000 in quantum meruit and/or quantum valebant.
Faughnan applied to strike out the proceedings, arguing that he lacked representative capacity when the summons was issued and that the claim was barred by the two-year limit in section 9(2) of the Civil Liability Act 1961. The judgment records that the summons did not state on its face that Faughnan was sued in a representative capacity. He accepted service after the grant issued and entered an unqualified appearance.
Justice Laffoy held that an administrator’s authority derives from the grant of administration. Although Faughnan later became the deceased’s personal representative, that did not cure the defect: the person named as defendant had to be able to answer the alleged wrongdoing and meet the remedy sought when the summons was issued. The proceedings were therefore not maintainable.
The judge accepted Faughnan’s submission that she should not address the separate limitation issue. She said doing so could prejudge an issue in any fresh proceedings against him as personal representative. The order struck out the proceedings and vacated the lis pendens; the judgment made no finding on the underlying farm-promise allegations or the limitation defence.