Lynch and Others v Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Ms. Justice Máire Whelan
• Judgment Date: 16 January 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IECA 2
• Docket Number: Court of Appeal Record Number: 2025 118

Between/

Frances Lynch, Hugh Fitzgibbon and York Design Limited

Appellants

and

Gregory Olan Murphy

Respondent

[2026] IECA 2

The President

Whelan J.

Pilkington J.

Court of Appeal Record Number: 2025 118

High Court Record Number: 2024/2271 P

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Wills and probate – Standing – Strike out – Appellants appealing against the judgment and order striking out their claim – Whether the appellants lacked standing to maintain the will challenge/probate suit

Facts: The appellants, Ms Lynch, Mr Fitzgibbon and York Design Ltd, appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court (Mulcahy J) ([2025] IEHC 193), and consequential order striking out their claim pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The judge held that they lacked standing to maintain the will challenge/probate suit “because there is no outcome...which could confer a benefit on them”. The appellants contended that the court erred in: (i) misapplying the established principles governing dismissal/strike out summarised in Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd v Ireland [2022] IECA 23, particularly since the trial judge had accepted that they had advanced “stateable grounds” concerning the will’s invalidity; (ii) since they had a “stateable case” on the issues of testamentary capacity, compliance with s. 78 as to due execution and alleged undue influence, the trial judge ought to have found that “the strength of the appellants’ claim” was a relevant matter in assessing whether the claim was frivolous and/or vexatious; (iii) failing to find that, in light of Vella v Morelli [1968] IR 11, it was in the public interest “the execution of testamentary documents should be open to scrutiny by persons having a real and genuine grounds for believing a purported will is not valid” - the appellants enjoyed the requisite standing to seek to set aside the grant of probate as the High Court accepted they had raised a “stateable case”; (iv) failing to find that since Vella v Morelli “the appellants’ involvement in litigation against the respondent as executor” meant “they enjoyed sufficient standing to challenge the Will”; (v) the court ought to have dismissed the motion since the grounding affidavit had been sworn prior to delivery of the Statement of Claim; and (vi) the court erred in finding that the litigation “was not bona fide” by reason that none of the appellants could benefit from it.

Held by Whelan J that the appellants had failed to establish any valid basis which would warrant interfering with the determinations and conclusions of the High Court. She held that their arguments did not disclose any valid basis for contending that any one or more of them enjoyed an entitlement to institute or pursue proceedings by way of a probate action seeking to have condemned the Last Will and Testament of the deceased, Mr Murphy, dated 3 January 2019 and revocation of the Grant of Probate dated 15 May 2020. She held that the judge’s determinations were well within the margin of his discretion and no reviewable error was identified by the appellants.

Whelan J dismissed the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

NO REDACTIONS NEEDED

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Máire Whelan delivered on the 16 ^th day of January 2026

1 . This is an appeal against the Judgment of Mulcahy J. of 4 ^th April 2025 [2025] IEHC 193, and consequential order perfected on 11 ^th April 2025, as amended on 13 ^th May 2025, striking out the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to the court's inherent jurisdiction. In his written judgement of 4 ^th April 2025, the learned judge held that the three plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain this will challenge/probate suit “ because there is no outcome…which could confer a benefit on them.” The Court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the executor's costs of the proceedings to be adjudicated in default of agreement. Whereas the court order states on its face that it was made “ by consent”, the parties accept that that is erroneous, although nothing turns on that error in this appeal.

The Background

2 . Edward Joseph Murphy (the deceased) died on 3 ^rd January 2019 in San Francisco, California. It is not in dispute that he left two surviving lawful next-of-kin in his sons Jonathan Francis Murphy and Edmond Joseph Murphy, both resident in San Francisco. By virtue of the terms of the deceased's Last Will and Testament dated 3 ^rd January 2019, the validity of which the plaintiffs attempt to contest by the within proceedings, he appointed Gregory Olan Murphy, his nephew, to act as his sole executor (the executor). On 15 ^th May 2020, the executor extracted an Irish Grant of Probate of the said Last Will and Testament.

3 . Under the terms of his Will, the beneficiaries are his said two sons together with his three named nephews John Paul Murphy, Gregory Olan Murphy (the executor) and Eamonn Anthony Murphy. A copy was provided to the first plaintiff around December 2020.

4 . It is acknowledged by them that none of the three plaintiffs take any benefit under the Will and neither do they stand to benefit in the event that the Will was for any reason condemned and the deceased be deemed to have died intestate.

The Circuit Court Proceedings

5 . The first named plaintiff, Frances Lynch, is a distant relative of the deceased. Following his death, she instituted proceedings in Cork Circuit (Record No. 2020 /00969) against the executor claiming an interest in a dwelling in Kinsale in the registered ownership of the deceased where she resides with her partner the second plaintiff.

6 . The executor instituted proceedings against the second named plaintiff in Cork Circuit (Record No. 2021/00309) on the basis that he is indebted to the estate.

7 . The third plaintiff is a limited liability company of which the second plaintiff is controller and company director. The executor instituted proceedings against the company in the Cork Circuit (Record No. 2021/00508) on the basis it is indebted to the estate. The three sets of proceedings stand adjourned before Cork Circuit Court.

8 . Thus far the prosecution of the Circuit Proceedings has been delayed and adjourned, laterally by the plaintiffs on the basis that adjournments were warranted by reason of this ill challenge which has delayed administration of the deceased's estate by the executor.

The Probate Suit

9 . Four years after the Grant of Probate issued to the executor, the three appellants instituted the within proceedings in the High Court by way of plenary summons on 3 ^rd May 2024. The writ seeks to have the Grant of Probate “ recalled and revoked and to have the pretended will condemned and declared null and void”.

10 . Procedurally, it is doubtful whether the proceedings were properly constituted in strict accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts, though no issue in that regard is live in this appeal. The first plaintiff asserts that the “ capacity” in which she pursues the proceedings is by virtue of being “ plaintiff” in her Cork Circuit proceedings. The second and third named plaintiffs purports to sue in their respective “ capacity” as “ defendants” in the respective Circuit Court proceedings. The verifying affidavit of each plaintiff acknowledges that the next of kin of the deceased are his two sons. Significantly, each deposes “ I say that there is no person other than the persons named above who will be entitled under an intestacy to any interest in the assets of the deceased.”

The Motion

11 . By notice of motion issued on 21 ^st October 2024 the executor sought an order striking out the proceedings either pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court together with costs. The executor's grounding affidavit, sworn on 16 ^th October 2024 identifies the various grounds being relied upon including that while the Circuit Court proceedings have been instituted several years previously and been ready for hearing since “ early 2023”, the plaintiffs have “ continuously raised issues pertaining to the litigation when the matters are ready to proceed, for example the unavailability of witnesses”. It is contended that various attempts have been made by the plaintiffs to frustrate disposition of the Circuit Court litigation. Elsewhere, the affidavit deposes that the named beneficiaries under the deceased's Will take no issue with the validity of same nor do his next of kin who alone would benefit on intestacy. He deposes that “some person is required to represent the estate of the deceased to allow the circuit court proceedings to be litigated it should be of no consequence to the plaintiffs who that person is, save for where that person is unsuitable for example by reason of conflict.” (para. 16 of said affidavit). The executor deposes that the plaintiffs could derive no direct benefit for themselves even if they have successfully challenged the deceased's last Will or are “ successfully pursuing the claim”. He further deposes that they “… do not seek reliefs as contingent or purported beneficiaries, nor assert any basis upon which they might be so entitled. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs therefore have no standing to challenge the validity of the will.” The executor emphasises that the deceased's sons are “ themselves satisfied as to the validity of the deceased's last will and this must be sufficiently probative or of added significance.” Potential motives identified for the institution of the proceedings include; “ The plaintiffs are maintaining a will challenge to serve their own interests. In respect of Frances Lynch, the primary objective is to remain in the property the subject of dispute for as long as possible, and in respect of Hugh Fitzgibbon and his company (“York”), the goal is to avoid having to deal with the debt claims being made against them, arising from monies which were loaned by the deceased to Hugh Fitzgibbon and his company.” (para. 24).

12 . Subsequent to...