The High Court has refused an application by Venetia Taylor to replace her sister, Serena Taylor, as executrix of their grandmother’s estate and to take priority in applying to administer their uncle’s partly unadministered estate.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts said the court was not satisfied that the delays or other complaints justified the relief sought. The application was decided on affidavit evidence and legal submissions after the court had refused Venetia Taylor’s request to cross-examine her sister on their affidavits.
Kathleen Taylor died in September 2019. Her will named Serena Taylor as substituted executrix after the sisters’ mother, Dolores, had predeceased her. Serena obtained probate on 28 September 2021. Venetia alleged serious delay and failures in protecting and accounting for the estate, including disputed claims and the handling of property said to belong to Gilbert Taylor’s estate. Serena denied wrongdoing and said she was continuing the administration with legal assistance.
Gilbert Taylor died intestate in 1995. His mother, Kathleen, had obtained letters of administration in 1997 but had not completed the administration before her death. A further grant, known as administration de bonis non, is needed to deal with any assets left unadministered. Venetia alleged that commercial and residential property was at risk because third parties occupied it, and sought priority to apply for that grant. Serena said she intended to pursue steps to recover the property once the grant issued. Her counsel told the court papers had been lodged with the probate office, but that information had not been provided in a supplemental affidavit.
The judge considered that the roughly two-year interval before probate issued for Kathleen’s estate, viewed in light of Covid restrictions, was not unreasonable enough to warrant Serena’s removal. For Gilbert’s estate, the court said Serena could fairly be criticised for delay only from the point she became entitled to apply for the further grant, after obtaining probate in Kathleen’s estate. Delay alone did not justify removing her from either estate.
The judgment also addressed a disputed figure of €73,737.12. The exhibits did not appear to support the applicant’s description of that amount as unvouched debts; the figure appeared to relate to assets held in financial institutions. A separate €147,800 entry in the revenue affidavit concerned care, maintenance, insurance, local property tax, gravestone and maintenance costs. The judge said Serena would have to account for the relevant claims to beneficiaries, but found her handling of the matter to date did not justify removal.
The court found no evidence of wrongdoing, dishonesty, lack of capacity or conflict of interest, and refused the reliefs in Venetia’s motion. It noted that Serena would be on notice of the complaints and that beneficiaries could have other remedies if duties were not discharged. The case was listed for mention on 26 July at 10.45am for submissions on legal costs and any other issues arising from the judgment.