Lynch and Others v Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy
• Judgment Date: 04 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 193
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record No: 2024/2271 P

Between:

Frances Lynch, Hugh Fitzgibbon and York Designs Limited

Plaintiffs

and

Gregory Olan Murphy

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 193

Record No: 2024/2271 P

THE HIGH COURT

Wills and probate – Abuse of process – Standing – Plaintiffs seeking orders declaring the will of the deceased to be invalid – Whether the plaintiffs lacked standing

Facts: The deceased, Mr E Murphy, died on 3 January 2019. He purported to execute a will on the day of his death. Under the will, the defendant, Mr G Murphy, the deceased’s nephew, was named as his executor. The plaintiffs, Ms Lynch, Mr Fitzgibbon and York Designs Ltd, sought orders declaring the will to be invalid and recalling and revoking the grant of probate extracted by the defendant on 15 May 2020. The plaintiffs expressly pleaded that “as parties to [three sets of Circuit Court] proceedings” they had locus standi to bring the proceedings. The plaintiffs were not beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate under the will. They did not contend that there was another document purporting to be the will of the deceased pursuant to which they were beneficiaries. All of the parties had sworn affidavits of scripts confirming that there was no other purported will in existence. The plaintiffs would not be beneficiaries of the estate if the will were declared invalid, i.e. in the event of intestacy, since there was no other purported will. The sole beneficiaries in the case of intestacy would be the deceased’s sons. They had not sought to challenge the will dated 3 January 2019. In those circumstances, the defendant contended that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge either the will or his appointment as executor since they could obtain no benefit from the proceedings. He contended that the sole purpose of the proceedings was to delay the progress of the three sets of Circuit Court proceedings and accordingly that they were an abuse of process. He thus applied to the High Court seeking to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or the court’s inherent jurisdiction as an abuse of process.

Held by Mulcahy J that, referring to Gilchrist v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2017] IECA 190, the court has jurisdiction to strike out a claim where the proceedings can confer no tangible benefit on the plaintiff. Mulcahy J found it impossible to identify any potential benefit to the plaintiffs from the proceedings, even if they were entirely successful. He held that having the will and grant of probate set aside would confer no advantage on the plaintiffs, nor could it. Although the plaintiffs contended that they required certainty that the party being sued and suing in a representative capacity had been properly appointed and would, therefore, be amenable to court orders in the Circuit Court, Mulcahy J held that the only uncertainty regarding same was caused by the proceedings. He held that a plaintiff cannot rely on the uncertainty that proceedings create to give them standing to maintain those same proceedings.

Mulcahy J accepted the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain the proceedings because there was no outcome from the proceedings which could confer a benefit on them. Mulcahy J held that the proceedings should, accordingly, be dismissed pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT ofMr Justice Rory Mulcahydelivered on 4 April 2025

Introduction

1 . Edward Joseph Murphy (“the deceased”) died in his home in California on 3 January 2019. He purported to execute a will on the day of his death (“ the Will”). Under the Will, the defendant, the deceased's nephew, was named as his executor. In these proceedings, the plaintiffs seek orders declaring the Will to be invalid and recalling and revoking the grant of probate extracted by the defendant on 15 May 2020. The plaintiffs expressly plead that “ as parties to [three sets of Circuit Court] proceedings” they have locus standi to bring these proceedings.

2 . The first plaintiff has sued the defendant, in his capacity as executor of the deceased's estate, in Circuit Court proceedings seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement regarding possession of a property in Kinsale, Co. Cork (“ the Property”). The first plaintiff currently occupies the Property with the second plaintiff. In addition, the defendant, also in his capacity as executor, has sued both the second plaintiff and the third plaintiff, in separate Circuit Court proceedings, seeking to recover debts allegedly owed by them to the estate.

3 . The plaintiffs are not beneficiaries of the deceased's estate under the Will. They do not contend that there is another document in being purporting to be the will of the deceased pursuant to which they are beneficiaries. In fact, all of the parties have sworn affidavits of scripts confirming that there is no other purported will in existence. Nor would the plaintiffs be beneficiaries of the estate if the Will were declared invalid, i.e. in the event of intestacy, since there is no other purported will. The sole beneficiaries in the case of intestacy would be the deceased's sons, Johnathon and Edmond Murphy. They have not sought to challenge the Will dated 3 January 2019.

4 . In those circumstances, the defendant contends that the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge either the Will or his appointment as executor since they can obtain no benefit from these proceedings. He contends that the sole purpose of these proceedings is to delay the progress of the three sets of Circuit Court proceedings and accordingly that they are an abuse of process. He has thus brought the application the subject of this judgment, seeking to strike out the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“ the Rules”) or the court's inherent jurisdiction as an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs' case

5 . The plaintiffs issued these proceedings on 3 May 2024. The defendant entered an appearance on 28 May 2024 and, after the parties exchanged affidavits of scripts, the plaintiffs delivered a statement of claim on 25 October 2024. In fact, the plaintiffs delivered their statement of claim a number of days after this motion issued. They argue that the defendant acted precipitously in issuing the motion when he did not know the full extent of the plaintiffs' case. It is certainly true that the case as pleaded in the statement of claim is in markedly different terms to any claim disclosed in the plenary summons.

6 . The plenary summons simply identifies each of the plaintiffs as parties in Circuit Court proceedings against the defendant and seeks orders to have the grant of probate revoked and to have the Will declared and void.

7 . The plaintiffs' statement of claim is more elaborate. They plead that the Will is invalid because it was not executed in accordance with the Succession Act 1965 and because the signature on the Will is not that of the deceased but is that of John Murphy, a beneficiary under the Will. John Murphy is also a nephew of the deceased. In the alternative, they plead that if the deceased did execute the Will, he lacked testamentary capacity at the time of so doing, did not know and approve of the contents of the Will and / or that he was induced to execute same by the undue influence of John Murphy.

8 . There are no particulars pleaded of the alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Succession Act 1965 independent of the other complaints about the Will. In relation to the allegation that the Will was not signed by the deceased but by John Murphy, the plaintiffs plead that they commissioned two reports from a named “ Court Qualified Forensic Document Examiner”. It is pleaded that the first report, dated 12 March 2024, concluded that it was “ highly improbable” that the signature on the Will was that of the deceased. It is pleaded that the second report, dated 27 March 2024, concluded that there were “ indications” that the purported signature of the deceased on the Will was that of John Murphy.

9 . In relation to testamentary capacity, the statement of claim refers to the fact that the deceased was terminally ill at the date of execution of the Will, noting that he died the same day. The deceased is alleged to have been heavily medicated at the time of execution, receiving end-of-life palliative care. Further details of his medical condition are set out. It is pleaded that the solicitors who drafted the Will were not in attendance at the execution of the Will and had no prior relationship with the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased had needed assistance when telephoning the first plaintiff from November 2018 and that he was at the time of the execution of the Will unable to understand its contents or to use a computer to send emails.

10 . As regards undue influence, it is pleaded that the deceased was under the “ direction and influence” of John Murphy at the date of execution of the Will. It is pleaded that it was John Murphy who first made contact with the solicitors who prepared the Will. Emails evidencing same are annexed to the statement of claim. The statement of claim also refers to emails purportedly sent by the deceased on the day of his death and describes as “ remarkable” the fact that on the day of his death, the deceased was able to send detailed emails regarding his will and to scan and send a copy of the Will in the hour prior to his death.

11 . The plaintiffs seek that the grant of probate be recalled, that the Will be declared invalid, and that an identified solicitor be appointed as administrator ad litem pursuant to section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965 for the limited purpose of defending the first plaintiff's proceedings against the estate.

12 . As the defendant had issued this motion prior to the delivery of the statement of claim, he has not delivered a defence.

The defendant's...