Dunne deceased: Dunne & ors -v- Dunne [2016] IECA 269 (11 October 2016)

Dunne deceased: Dunne & ors -v- Dunne [2016] IECA 269 (11 October 2016)

Conflict of interest alone does not necessitate removal of a personal representative unless it hinders fair and proper determination of issues. No misconduct or operative conflict shown. Replacement would add unnecessary cost and not alter substantive determination. Appeal allowed; William Dunne to remain as personal representative.

Citation
[2016] IECA 269
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Arthur Dunne; Plaintiff/respondent: Dympna Dormon (nee Dunne); Plaintiff/respondent: James Dunne; Plaintiff/respondent: Gerry Dunne; Plaintiff/respondent: Cecil Dunne Junior; Plaintiff/respondent: Dominic Dunne; Plaintiff/respondent: Ann Ryan (nee Dunne); Plaintiff/respondent: Patrick Dunne; Plaintiff/respondent: Martin Dunne; Defendant/appellant: William Dunne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Removal of Personal Representative, Conflict of Interest, Statute of Limitations, Adverse Possession
Succession Law Trusts and Estates Removal of Personal Representative Conflict of Interest Statute of Limitations Adverse Possession

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Dunne

Plaintiff/respondent

Dympna Dormon (nee Dunne)

Plaintiff/respondent

James Dunne

Plaintiff/respondent

Gerry Dunne

Plaintiff/respondent

Cecil Dunne Junior

Plaintiff/respondent

Dominic Dunne

Plaintiff/respondent

Ann Ryan (nee Dunne)

Plaintiff/respondent

Patrick Dunne

Plaintiff/respondent

Martin Dunne

Plaintiff/respondent

William Dunne

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether William Dunne should be removed as legal personal representative due to conflict of interest
  2. 2 Whether pleading statute of limitations and adverse possession constitutes a conflict requiring removal
  3. 3 Whether replacement is necessary for fair determination of estate administration

Ratio Decidendi

Conflict of interest alone does not necessitate removal of a personal representative unless it hinders fair and proper determination of issues. No misconduct or operative conflict shown. Replacement would add unnecessary cost and not alter substantive determination. Appeal allowed; William Dunne to remain as personal representative.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order revoking removal of William Dunne as personal representative
  • Order revoking appointment of independent administrator