Scally -v- Rhatigan [2012] IEHC 387 (01 October 2012)

Scally -v- Rhatigan [2012] IEHC 387 (01 October 2012)

Both parties are entitled to their costs of the first module out of the estate as litigation was reasonable and bona fide. For the second module, the plaintiff's conflict of interest precluded her from acting as executor; she should have recognised this and not defended the counterclaim. Defendant is entitled to costs of the second module out of the estate; no order for costs in favour of the plaintiff for the second module.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 387
Parties
Plaintiff: Sharon Scally; Defendant: Odilla Rhatigan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Costs Determination Following Two Modules of Trial
Outcome
Costs order issued
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Conflict of Interest, Costs in Probate Actions, Executor Removal
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Testamentary Capacity Conflict of Interest Costs in Probate Actions Executor Removal

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Scally

Plaintiff

Odilla Rhatigan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Costs Determination Following Two Modules of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs of the first module out of the estate despite being unsuccessful
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the second module out of the estate after being found conflicted
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the plaintiff personally for the second module

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties are entitled to their costs of the first module out of the estate as litigation was reasonable and bona fide. For the second module, the plaintiff's conflict of interest precluded her from acting as executor; she should have recognised this and not defended the counterclaim. Defendant is entitled to costs of the second module out of the estate; no order for costs in favour of the plaintiff for the second module.

Court Disposition

Costs order issued

Orders

  • Both plaintiff and defendant entitled to costs of first module out of the estate, taxed in default of agreement.
  • Defendant entitled to costs of second module out of the estate, taxed in default of agreement.