Patricia Ann Keegan v Terence John Keegan & Anor

Patricia Ann Keegan v Terence John Keegan & Anor

The court accepted the single joint expert's plan for Field 84, including the triangle, and determined the ROW as a direct route from gate to gate per the expert's plan. Patricia, as personal representative, properly accounted for and paid CGT from the estate proceeds. Terence's objections to boundary, ROW, and CGT were rejected. Patricia's draft TP1 was approved. Costs were awarded to Patricia, reflecting Terence's conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement.

Parties
Claimant: Patricia Ann Keegan; Defendant/claimant: Terence John Keegan; Defendant: Rita Carmel Varga; Defendant: Marie Anna Darley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (probate/property Trust) / Post Trial Judgment on Applications and Estate Distribution
Outcome
Judgment for Patricia Ann Keegan; applications granted in substantial part; estate accounts approved; orders for marking boundary and ROW; costs awarded to Patricia.
Legal Topics
Boundary Determination, Right of Way, Estate Distribution, Capital Gains Tax Liability, Injunctions, Costs Assessment
Property Law Probate Trusts Civil Procedure Boundary Determination Right of Way Estate Distribution Capital Gains Tax Liability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Ann Keegan

Claimant

Terence John Keegan

Defendant/claimant

Rita Carmel Varga

Defendant

Marie Anna Darley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (probate/property Trust) / Post Trial Judgment on Applications and Estate Distribution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Precise boundary determination of Field 84
  2. 2 Identification and marking of right of way (ROW)
  3. 3 Entitlement to injunctions regarding boundary and ROW

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the single joint expert's plan for Field 84, including the triangle, and determined the ROW as a direct route from gate to gate per the expert's plan. Patricia, as personal representative, properly accounted for and paid CGT from the estate proceeds. Terence's objections to boundary, ROW, and CGT were rejected. Patricia's draft TP1 was approved. Costs were awarded to Patricia, reflecting Terence's conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Patricia Ann Keegan; applications granted in substantial part; estate accounts approved; orders for marking boundary and ROW; costs awarded to Patricia.

Orders

  • Boundary of Field 84 to be marked per Insepes plan by single joint expert.
  • Terence permitted to erect stock-proof fence strictly per marked boundary.