Rippington v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Garrett Simons
• Judgment Date: 24 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 353
• Docket Number: 2018 No. 4803 P.
• Court: High Court
• Date: 24 May 2019

[2019] IEHC 353

THE HIGH COURT

Simons J.

2018 No. 4803 P.

BETWEEN

MAJELLA RIPPINGTON

PLAINTIFF

AND

IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

PRINCIPAL PROBATE REGISTRY

THE LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND

MURRAY FLYNN MAGUIRE SOLICITORS

SIGHLE DUFFY

ANNE STEPHENSON (PRACTISING UNDER THE STYLE AND TITLE OF STEPHENSON SOLICITORS)

PETER MAGUIRE

DOMINIC HUSSEY

RITA CONSIDINE

DEFENDANTS

Interlocutory order – Nullity – Abuse of process – Defendants seeking to have the proceedings as against them dismissed on the basis that same were frivolous and vexatious and disclosed no cause of action – Whether the maintenance of the proceedings constituted an abuse of process

Facts: The plaintiff, Ms Rippington, instituted proceedings on 25 May 2018. A statement of claim was delivered on 3 September 2018. The gravamen of the case as pleaded was that an interlocutory order made by the High Court (O’Neill J) on 23 July 2012 in the course of earlier probate proceedings was a nullity. The impugned order had authorised Ms Stephenson, Solicitor, to apply to be appointed as administrator pendente lite for the purpose of gathering in and preserving the assets of the deceased, Miss Murphy, paying the debts of the deceased (including her funeral expenses) and discharging the mortgage on the property of the deceased. Ms Stephenson duly discharged her limited role, and then applied to have her appointment revoked in 2014. That order was granted by the High Court (Baker J) in July 2014, and Ms Stephenson was awarded her costs from out of the estate. Ms Rippington sought to criticise certain of the defendants for what was alleged to have been their part in securing the impugned order of 23 July 2012. The defendants named in the proceedings included inter alia (i) the junior counsel who had originally acted for Ms Rippington in the probate proceedings; (ii) the solicitors and junior counsel who had acted for the other side in the probate proceedings; and (iii) Ms Stephenson, who had been appointed as administrator pendente lite. Each of the defendants brought an application to have the proceedings as against them dismissed on the basis that same were frivolous and vexatious and disclosed no cause of action. The proceedings were also said to be an abuse of the court process. In addition, some of the defendants sought an order restraining Ms Rippington from issuing any further proceedings without the prior leave of the High Court (an Isaac Wunder order).

Held by the High Court (Simons J) that this was an appropriate case to make such orders. The principal reasons for Simons J’s decision were as follows: first, the entire proceedings were predicated on an argument that the order of 23 July 2012 was invalid and it was an abuse of process for Ms Rippington to seek to reagitate this argument in circumstances where she neither sought to appeal the order at the relevant time nor applied to O’Neill J to vary the order; secondly, Ms Rippington had been unable to point to any actionable wrong on the part of any of the defendants; thirdly, Ms Rippington was unable to point to any loss or damage suffered by her personally as a result of the alleged invalidity of the order; and fourthly, the order of 23 July 2012 could not, in any event, be set aside in these proceedings given that neither of the two defendants to the probate proceedings, namely Mr Cox and Ms Butler, had been joined to these proceedings.

Simons J held that the proceedings would be dismissed. He was also satisfied that this was an appropriate case to make a restraining order against Ms Rippington, prohibiting her from instituting any further proceedings against any of the defendants without the prior leave of the President of the High Court (or the prior leave of a judge assigned by the President to hear an application for leave). Simons J found that the past conduct of Ms Rippington indicated that she had no compunction in making entirely unfounded allegations against those with whom she disagreed and that, as appeared from the title of these proceedings, Ms Rippington was indiscriminate in those against whom she was prepared to issue proceedings.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 24 May 2019.

INTRODUCTION

1 These unfortunate proceedings arise out of a long running and bitter dispute in relation to the estate of the late Celine Murphy. Miss Murphy died testate on 15 March 2011. Miss Murphy had suffered from cancer and made a Will shortly before her death. The Will is dated 8 March 2011. One of the saddest features of this saga is that the wishes of Miss Murphy were not respected. Rather than going to the intended beneficiary, the entire of the estate of the late Miss Murphy has instead been exhausted in legal fees incurred in respect of the probate proceedings described below.

2 The Plaintiff herein, Majella Rippington, is the sister of the late Miss Murphy (‘ the deceased’). Ms Rippington had issued earlier proceedings on 16 September 2011 seeking to strike down her late sister's Will. I propose to refer to these earlier proceedings as ‘ the probate proceedings’.

3 Ms Rippington had challenged her sister's Will on the basis inter alia that same had not executed by the deceased, and, in the alternative, that the deceased had lacked testamentary capacity. The proceedings were ultimately unsuccessful, and the Will was admitted to probate in solemn form of law by judgment of the High Court (Noonan J.) dated 30 July 2015, Rippington v. Cox [2015] IEHC 516. Ms Rippington was dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court and brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal. That appeal was dismissed on 19 December 2017, Rippington v. Cox [2017] IECA 331.

4 Ms Rippington instituted the within proceedings on 25 May 2018. A Statement of Claim was delivered on 3 September 2018. The gravamen of the case as pleaded is that an interlocutory order made by the High Court (O'Neill J.) on 23 July 2012 in the course of the earlier probate proceedings is a nullity. The impugned order had authorised Anne Stephenson, Solicitor, to apply to be appointed as administrator pendente lite for the purpose of gathering in and preserving the assets of the deceased, paying the debts of the deceased (including her funeral expenses) and discharging the mortgage on the property of the deceased. Ms Stephenson duly discharged her limited role, and then applied to have her appointment revoked in 2014. That order was granted by the High Court (Baker J.) in July 2014, and Ms Stephenson was awarded her costs from out of the estate.

5 Ms Rippington seeks to criticise certain of the Defendants herein for what is alleged to have been their part in securing the impugned order of 23 July 2012. The Defendants named in the proceedings include inter alia (i) the junior counsel who had originally acted for Ms Rippington in the probate proceedings; (ii) the solicitors and junior counsel who had acted for the other side in the probate proceedings; and (iii) Ms Stephenson who, it will be recalled, had been appointed as administrator pendente lite.

6 Each of these Defendants has brought an application to have the proceedings as against them dismissed on the basis that same are frivolous and vexatious and disclose no cause of action. The proceedings are also said to be an abuse of the court process.

7 In addition, some of these Defendants have sought an order restraining Ms Rippington from issuing any further proceedings without the prior leave of the High Court. An order of this type is sometimes referred to as an Isaac Wunder order.

8 For the reasons set out in detail hereinafter, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to make such orders. By way of summary only, the principal reasons for my decision are as follows.

9 First, the entire proceedings are predicated on an argument that the order of 23 July 2012 is invalid. It is an abuse of process for Ms Rippington to seek to reagitate this argument in circumstances where she neither sought to appeal the order at the relevant time nor applied to O'Neill J. to vary the order. The Court of Appeal has since dismissed an application to extend time on the basis inter alia that the order was properly made. It is not open to Ms Rippington to use the within proceedings to launch a collateral challenge to this finding. This is especially so in circumstances where the within proceedings represent, at the very least, the fifth attempt by Ms Rippington to set aside the order.

10 Secondly, Ms Rippington has been unable to point to any actionable wrong on the part of any of the Defendants. The uncontroverted evidence before the court indicates that the order appointing the administrator pendente lite was made on consent, and, in any event, that it was a proper order to be made in the context of the then ongoing litigation. Ms Rippington had the benefit of legal advice at the time. Neither her own barrister nor the solicitors and barrister acting on behalf of the other side can be criticised for their conduct. Similarly, no valid criticism can be made of Ms Stephenson. The uncontroverted evidence indicates that Ms Stephenson discharged her duties properly and was awarded her costs out of the estate.

11 Thirdly, Ms Rippington is unable to point to any loss or damage suffered by her personally as a result of the alleged invalidity of the order. Even if it had been established that any loss was caused to her late sister's estate—and the evidence is entirely to the contrary—Ms Rippington does not have standing to make any claim in this regard in circumstances where she is not a beneficiary of the estate under the Will nor would she have been a beneficiary on intestacy.

12 Fourthly, the order of 23 July 2012 could not, in any event, be set aside in these proceedings given that neither of the two defendants to the probate proceedings, namely Michael Cox and Mary Butler, have been joined to these proceedings....