The High Court has refused an application by two brothers to remove their sibling as executor of their late mother’s estate, finding that they had not established serious misconduct or improper motivation. The court said the main delays in administering the estate were overwhelmingly the responsibility of the second applicant, who had managed the family’s farming interests and held records needed to prepare the estate accounts.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kennedy on 31 July 2024, concerns the estate of Mary Conway, who died in 2013. The will left 90% of the estate to three sons and 5% each to the second applicant and the respondent, who had received farms from their mother during her lifetime. The applicants sought the respondent’s removal, citing delays, disputed financial claims, his handling of estate assets and a proposed interim distribution.
The judge found that the executor could not proceed with probate until he had information needed to regularise tax filings and identify assets and liabilities. The second applicant provided enough basic information for accounts to be prepared only in March 2021, nearly eight years after his mother’s death. The court also noted that documents remained outstanding at the hearing and that the livestock sale proceeds had not been fully reconciled.
The respondent claimed that the second applicant owed the estate €569,130 and that the family partnership owed €68,343. The judge did not determine whether either debt was due or quantify any liability. He found that the executor was entitled, and obliged, to investigate potentially substantial claims arising from joint loans and expenditure on the second applicant’s land. The court said the available material raised legitimate questions but left their resolution to full disclosure and, if needed, independent forensic analysis or further court proceedings.
The judgment also addressed the second applicant’s handling of cheques payable to his mother, which he deposited into his wife’s account without the executor’s approval, and his taking and re-registering her car. The judge found those actions unauthorised. A forensic handwriting report raised a legitimate issue about signatures on two bank documents, but the court made no finding that they were forged, who might have forged them, or whether undue influence occurred. It made no finding of criminal liability.
The judge found that the executor had acted bona fide and that his intemperate correspondence did not amount to misconduct warranting removal. The court also rejected claims that he had wrongfully disposed of agricultural entitlements or that his proposal for an interim distribution justified removing him; he had undertaken not to make that distribution while the application was pending. It refused the removal application and invited written submissions on costs by 9 September 2024. The judgment urged the parties to cooperate and provide the outstanding information so the estate could be administered and distributed.