Re Martin Glynn Deceased

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 April 1992
• Date: 01 April 1992
• Court: Supreme Court

In re Martin Glynn, Deceased

In the estate of Martin Glynn, deceased; Ireland and The Attorney General

Appellants

and

Michael Kelly, Respondent and Michael Concannon, Notice Party

Supreme Court

Succession - Will - Executor - Administration of estate - Power of court to appoint administrator where special circumstances cast which make it necessary or expedient so to do - Testator's sister given a life interest in farm - Interest in remainder vested in respondent - Respondent named as executor in will - Respondent murdering tenant for life - Capacity to benefit under will could only be determined during course of administration - Whether special circumstances existed which made it necessary or expedient to grant administration to another person - Succession Act, 1965 (No. 27), s. 27, sub-ss. 3 and 4.

Section 27, sub-s. 4 of the Succession Act, 1965, provides—

"Where by reason of any special circumstances it appears to the High Court. . . to be necessary or expedient to do so, the court may order that administration be granted to such person as it thinks fit."

By the terms of his will executed on the 29th April, 1981, the testator devised and bequeathed his farm to his sister as a life tenant, the remainder interest to vest in the first respondent. The will also named the respondent as executor of the deceased's estate. By a codicil to the will the notice party took a pecuniary legacy.

The testator died on the 15th November, 1981. His sister was murdered on the same day. On the 23rd March, 1983, the respondent was convicted of her murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The sole surviving next of kin renounced his right to a grant of administration. The appellants, supported by the notice party, applied to the High Court to have letters of administration granted to the Chief State Solicitor in respect of the deceased's estate. The High Court (Gannon J.) made an order granting administration to the Chief State Solicitor but limited his power under the grant to taking in and preserving the deceased's assets. He stated that the question of the respondent's capacity to benefit under the will could be addressed when he, as executor, applied for a grant of probate to the deceased's estate.

The appellants appealed to the High Court against this limitation on the grant of administration. On their behalf it was argued inter alia that the construction of the will, and, in particular the question of the capacity of the respondent to benefit under the will in circumstances where he had been convicted of the murder of the life tenant of the estate might never be determined by the courts unless a full grant of administration was taken out in the name of the Chief State Solicitor.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that there was no statutory prohibition on a convicted felon acting as executor of a will.

Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., McCarthy and Egan JJ.) in allowing the appellant's appeal and removing the limitation on the grant of administration, 1, that s. 27, sub-s. 4 of the Act of 1965 should be given a liberal construction.

2. That the fact that the respondent accelerated his interest in remainder by murdering the tenant for life of the estate together with the fact that his capacity to benefit under the will might not be determined unless the administration of the estate was...