Arrow left dark
Newsletter icon SUBSCRIBE
Article Tags:
northern ireland

NI: High Court: ‘Dishonest blusterer’ in breach of his legal and statutory duty as executor of his father’s estate

Clock icon Reading time: 5 minutes
Article Tags:
northern ireland

A man who disposed of upwards of £76,000 from his father’s estate while acting as executor has been found by the High Court in Belfast in breach of his legal and statutory duty as an executor, and guilty of devastivit in carrying out his role as executor of the estate of the deceased.

Image

About this case:

Referring the matter to the PSNI for investigation, Mr Justice Mark Horner described the man as “a dishonest blusterer who thought he could intimidate the rest of his family”.

Background

The plaintiff, Mr Albert Ridley, brought the claim to the High Court as personal representative of the estate of the deceased having replaced the defendant, Mr Derek Ridley, as the administrator of the estate of the deceased pursuant to Article 5 of the Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 in January 2013.

The plaintiff is the eldest son of Mr Albert Edward Ridley (deceased) who died in February 2009. As such, on the one side of this dispute was the plaintiff and other members of the family; and on the other side their brother Derek.

The claims were summarised briefly as follows:

  1. The loss of £76,000 in cash which the deceased withdrew before his death so that he could give a share to each of his children before he died.

  2. The failure of the defendant to account fully for £18,169 which was in the deceased’s bank account and which the defendant was ordered to deliver up to the plaintiff’s solicitor by March 2017.

  3. The failure and/or refusal of the defendant to hand over the documents of title for 154 Causeway Street, Portrush owned by the deceased at the date of his death.

  4. The cost of the use and occupation of the garage at Causeway Street by the defendant, the repair costs of £770 arising from the alleged disrepair of the house at Causeway Street which occurred during the period when the defendant was purporting to act as executor, and the loss of the deceased’s military memorabilia.

    5. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging that:

    1. The £76,000 cash was distributed to the family, who divided it between themselves including the share earmarked for him.

    2. The family inherited jewellery to the value of £15,000- £25,000 belonging to the mother, which must be accounted for to the estate.

    3. Various items of furniture which belonged to him amounting in total value to over £2,500 were removed from the house at Causeway Street; he also seeks to recover £6,000 being his costs of maintaining the front and back gardens at Causeway Street during his period as executor.

      4. High Court

      In considering the evidence provided by both parties, Justice Horner described the plaintiff as “straightforward and truthful”, making “concessions when pressed”, and admitting that “he had limited contact with the deceased until the two years before his death”.

      The plaintiff regarded the defendant as corrupt, a sentiment that echoed in evidence given by other members of the family who all “harboured a dislike of the defendant which they each found difficult to conceal”

      Justice Horner stated that he was especially alert to the animosity colouring the family’s testimony, but was satisfied that the plaintiff and his witnesses were trying to tell the truth as they remembered it.

      In contrast to the favourable impression of the plaintiff and the rest of the family, Justice Horner described the defendant as aggressive and gratuitously rude, calling the plaintiff “a tramp”, his sister-in-law was “the biggest prostitute in Coleraine”, said that one of his brothers deserved a stroke and “has worse coming”. In general, he described his siblings as “low lives” and “money grabbers”.

      In an unguarded moment when asked about the money in the deceased’s bank account at the date of the deceased’s death, he told the Court that “possession was nine tenths of the law. I had the money. I owned it.”

      Describing the defendant as “a dishonest blusterer who thought he could intimidate the rest of his family” Justice Horner stated that he was not impressed with the defendant’s demeanour in the witness box; that he had no compunction in telling the easy lie if he thought it would assist his defence; and that he was aggressive, quick to interrupt and even quicker to hand out offensive insults, the more offensive the better, against other witnesses

      As such, Justice Horner concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, it was the defendant who took the £76,000 – explaining why he made no attempts to administer the estate and how he could continue to fund long stays in Florida.

      Decision

      Accordingly, Justice Horner concluded that:

      1. The defendant was in breach of his legal and statutory duty as an executor, and was guilty of devastivit in carrying out his role as executor of the estate of the deceased. The £76,000 in cash (plus interest) should be split equally amongst his children (or their heirs).

      2. The defendant is in breach of a court order and has failed to pay money he claimed to be his share of the money lodged in the deceased’s bank at the date of his death. The total sum due was calculated at £4015.17, plus interest.

      3. The deceased failed to hand over the title deeds to Causeway Street. In relation to the various costs alleged by both parties, Justice Horner stated that any claim by the plaintiff would be set off by the counter claim of the defendant.

      4. There was a lack of evidence regarding the deceased’s military medals, as such Court was unable to make any assessment.

      5. The defendant failed to prove to the court that the family had taken jewellery.

      6. The sums due by the defendant including the previous order for costs, should be off set against the defendant’s share in the estate.

        7. Furthermore, Justice Horner referred the judgment and court papers to the PSNI for investigation.

        • by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News

          • Share icon
          Share this article:

          Related Articles