The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by Majella Rippington over an order made during a dispute about her late sister’s estate, finding that the claim disclosed no cause of action and amounted to an abuse of process. It also ordered that Rippington must obtain prior leave before bringing or taking further steps in proceedings against the defendants named in this case.
In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2019, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the proceedings sought, in substance, to set aside a 23 July 2012 order. That order gave solicitor Anne Stephenson liberty to apply for a limited grant of administration while the validity of Celine Murphy’s will was being challenged. Its stated purposes included preserving the estate’s assets, paying debts and funeral expenses, and discharging a mortgage on Murphy’s property.
The judge said the order was made on notice and after the court heard counsel for both sides. The uncontroverted evidence before him was that the appointment was made with the plaintiffs’ consent. Rippington had legal representation at the time. She did not appeal the order then, and the Court of Appeal later refused an extension of time to appeal, finding there was no arguable ground. The High Court said the present claim was at least her fifth attempt to set the order aside.
Stephenson carried out the limited role and applied to have the grant revoked after completing its purpose. The High Court revoked it in July 2014 and awarded her measured costs of €28,593.95 against the estate. The 2019 judgment noted that the estate’s lawful executor and the will’s beneficiary, Michael Cox and Mary Butler, were not parties to the new case; setting aside the 2012 order without them would deny them an opportunity to be heard.
Justice Simons also found that Rippington had identified no actionable wrong by the defendants or personal loss resulting from the order. He said she was not a beneficiary under the will or on intestacy and could not bring a claim for alleged loss to the estate. The judge concluded that the case could not be rescued by amendment.
The order dismissed the proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The separate restriction requires Rippington to seek leave in writing from the President of the High Court, or a judge assigned to hear a leave application, before instituting further proceedings against any defendant in this case or taking further steps in any pending proceedings against them. The ruling does not determine the merits of the earlier will challenge anew: that challenge had already been dismissed, and the will was admitted to probate in 2015.