Young v Cadell & Ors [2006] IEHC 49 (13 February 2006)

Young v Cadell & Ors [2006] IEHC 49 (13 February 2006)

The plaintiff's claim was largely misconceived as the only relief available was the assent to the property devised, which was eventually executed. The estates of Samuel Young and Josephine Young were not before the court, and no order could be made regarding them. The dispute with the fourth defendant was a title dispute predating the testator's death and not suitable for resolution by special summons. No order as to costs was made between the plaintiff and any defendant.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 49
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Young; First Defendant: Paddy Cadell; Second Defendant: Teresa Doyle; Third Defendant: Mary Courtney; Fourth Defendant: Donal Young; Fifth Defendant: Patrick Young; Sixth Defendant: Mary Young; Seventh Defendant: Michael Young; Eighth Defendant: Paul Young; Ninth Defendant: Catherina Mockler
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Special Summons (probate/administration) / High Court Judgment on Costs and Disposition
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed as against all defendants; no order as to costs between plaintiff and any defendant.
Legal Topics
Administration of Estates, Costs in Probate Proceedings, Intestacy, Assent to Devise, Title Disputes
Probate Succession Civil Procedure Administration of Estates Costs in Probate Proceedings Intestacy Assent to Devise Title Disputes

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Young

Plaintiff

Paddy Cadell

First Defendant

Teresa Doyle

Second Defendant

Mary Courtney

Third Defendant

Donal Young

Fourth Defendant

Patrick Young

Fifth Defendant

Mary Young

Sixth Defendant

Michael Young

Seventh Defendant

Paul Young

Eighth Defendant

Catherina Mockler

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Summons (probate/administration) / High Court Judgment on Costs and Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief regarding the estate of the testator and the estates of Samuel Young and Josephine Young
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was obliged to execute an assent to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim was largely misconceived as the only relief available was the assent to the property devised, which was eventually executed. The estates of Samuel Young and Josephine Young were not before the court, and no order could be made regarding them. The dispute with the fourth defendant was a title dispute predating the testator's death and not suitable for resolution by special summons. No order as to costs was made between the plaintiff and any defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed as against all defendants; no order as to costs between plaintiff and any defendant.

Orders

  • No order as to costs between plaintiff and defendants other than the fourth defendant.
  • Plaintiff's claim against the fourth defendant dismissed; no order as to costs.