Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IEHC 644 ECLI:IE:HC:2018:644 AI generated

Court dismisses application by non-legal representative seeking to act as personal representative in estate proceedings.

Case Number IEHC 644
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to proceed as the personal representative of the late Mary Markey. Although James Kelly had previously obtained a grant of letters ad litem to support specific litigation, he is not the legal personal representative of the deceased. Consequently, the court ruled that he lacks the standing to seek any reliefs in his purported capacity as the personal representative.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965; Section 17 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986: A person holding a grant of letters ad litem is not automatically the personal representative and cannot sue or be sued in that capacity without proper appointment.

Keywords

AI generated
letters ad litem personal representative estate proceedings standing to sue Succession Act 1965 litigation capacity procedural standing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965
ordered “pursuant to Section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965 that James Kelly be at
Order 17, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

[2018] IEHC 644

THE HIGH COURT

2003 No. 500 SP

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PHILIP MARKEY, BUSINESSMAN, LATE OF CURRAGH LAWN NURSING HOME, KINNEAGH,

CURRAGH, CO KILDARE AND FORMERLY OF ‘THE STRAY INN’, MILE MILL, KILCULLEN, CO KILDARE, DECEASED

JOHN O’CONNOR

APPLICANT

– AND –

GERARD MARKEY AND JAMES KELLY, AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTAIVE OF THE LATE MARY MARKEY

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 19th November, 2018.

1. By order of 11th June, 2018, Baker J. ordered “pursuant to Section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965 that James Kelly be at

liberty to apply for and extract a Grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem in the estate of the said deceased limited for the

purposes of substantiating proceedings intended to be instituted by James Kelly on behalf of the estate and/or continuing

existing proceedings between John O’Connor Plaintiff and Gerard Markey and Mary Markey Defendants”. [Emphasis in

original]. There was some suggestion at the hearing of the within application that the order made by Baker J. was not the order that

had been sought of her, but clearly it is the order that Baker J. was prepared to give; many people come to court seeking one order

and find that a judge is only prepared to make some other order.

2. Notably, under the terms of the order Mr Kelly is authorised to apply for and extract a grant of letter of administration ad litem. Yet

on 6th July, 2018, by way of ex parte application before the High Court, Mr Kelly, pursuant to O.17, r.4 of the Rules of the Superior

Courts 1986, as amended, had the title of the within proceedings amended so that the name of the second-named defendant (“MARY

MARKEY”) was replaced by “JAMES KELLY, AS THE PERSONAL REPRESNTATIVE OF THE LATE MARY MARKEY”. Mr Kelly is not the

personal representative of the late Ms Markey and ought not to be named as such in the within proceedings.

3. In the notice of motion now before the court, Mr Kelly seeks certain reliefs of the court in his purported capacity as the personal

representative of the late Ms Markey. Mr Kelly is not the personal representative of the late Ms Markey and is not therefore entitled

to any reliefs sought by him in that capacity.