A dispute over the estate of a deceased Co Wexford man whose will left it to his 38 nieces and nephews is not appropriate for hearing in the High Court and should be heard in the Circuit Court, a judge has ruled.
The dispute concerns the estate, including his home at Iskabeg, the Ballagh, Enniscorthy, of Michael Redmond (98), a widower with no children who died in a nursing home in December 2021.
In a will dated June 22nd, 2015, Mr Redmond left his estate to his nieces and nephews and there are 38 beneficiaries, aged between 50 and 79, the judge said.
In late 2022, the estate executors issued proceedings against the deceased’s nephew, Michael Corrigan (76), and Mr Corrigan’s daughter, Shinéad , seeking possession of the farmhouse property. The executors say the house was previously valued at €230,000, but this may have increased.
RM Block
The defendants issued a defence and also counterclaimed for orders, including for specific performance of an alleged agreement by Mr Redmond the property would be left to Mr Corrigan, and damages of €60,000.
In late 2023, Mr Corrigan issued separate High Court proceedings against the executors, seeking orders including payment of €286,000 quantum merit damages, which are damages for provision of goods or services without a formal contract.
Mr Corrigan, who is among the beneficiaries of his uncle’s will, claims Mr Redmond, his godfather, promised him the farmhouse property and, on foot of that, he had left Achill Island and has lived in it since 2017.
He claims he has carried out extensive renovation and upkeep works to the house and curtilage and is the rightful owner.
In her recently published High Court judgment, granting an application by the executors to have the dispute decided in the Circuit Court rather than the High Court, Ms Justice Cahill said the orders sought in the High Court claim are almost identical to those sought in the counterclaim to the Circuit Court case.
The “only noticeable” difference is between the sums of damages claimed, she said.
There was “no justification” stated in the court papers for this “significant” jump on the amount of damages, she said.
However, because the executors had consented to the Circuit Court having “unlimited monetary jurisdiction” in a claim of the type advanced in the existing proceedings in that court, the monetary difference in both claims was not a material matter.
For those reasons, and to avoid unnecessary and undesirable multiplicity of proceedings seeing substantially the same orders, and dealing with the same claims and the same property, she was satisfied it was appropriate to remit the High Court proceedings to Wexford Circuit Court.
The imperative must be to have all disputes related to the estate resolved so it can be administered without further undue delay or unnecessary costs incurred, she said.
Earlier in her decision, the judge noted Mr Corrigan had not attended the hearing of the executors’ application. Ms Corrigan did attend but did not identify any “exceptional circumstances” to justify her attempts to advocate for her father.
The judge had ruled there was no basis established for adjourning the hearing of the application and Ms Corrigan had no right to make submissions to the court on the matter. The executors, the judge noted, refuted allegations, including of wrongdoing, made against them by Ms Corrigan in an affidavit which related mainly to the merits of the underlying dispute.
