Supreme Court: Inheritance dispute arising from death of father in 1965 is dismissed

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Patrick Reen argued that the public house which had been established by his great-grandfather in 1860 should have been inherited by him in turn, like his father and grandfather – however the Court dismissed the proceedings, finding that he was out of time.

Background

Mr Reen’s father, Jeremiah Reen, died in 1965 when the appellant in these proceedings was eleven. Mr Reen senior was survived by his wife, Hannah Reen, and their two children, Patrick and Catherine.

Unfortunately, many years after the death of Mr Reen senior, issues arose in relation to the ownership of Reen’s Bar, Bearings Cross, Bearings, County Cork.

The court heard that Catherine Reen formed a personal relationship with Donal Brendan O’Connell, a solicitor (and a respondent in the present proceedings), and they lived together for several years in Ballincollig, County Cork in her home.

Hannah Reen died in 1985. Catherine Reen died in 2004 and Mr O’Connell died in 2008.

Mr Reen made various observations as to the mental capacity of his mother, his sister, and Mr O’Connell.

As such, he submitted:

“It was Mr Colm Murphy business partner of Donal Brendan O’Connell who made my late sister’s last will. (This is a conflict of interests as he was a business partner to her partner Donal Brendan O’Connell). In her will she left everything to her lifelong partner Mr O’Connell, nothing to her only brother, the only member of her immediate family left… The family property was not her property to donate in her will and this has been under dispute since 1993 after the death of our late mother Hannah Reen.”

Mr Reen pointed out that his late father had inherited the estate of his father who died in 1942 and that in turn his grandfather inherited his estate from Mr Reen’s great-grandfather, who founded the premises known as Reen’s Public House in 1860, together with the two agricultural holdings.

Thus, as he sets out, the public house at the centre of these proceedings has been passed down from father to son for several generations. That came to an end in circumstances where ultimately the property was left to Mr Reen’s sister Catherine who then left the property by her will to Donal Brendan O’Connell.

Mr Reen contended that the property established by his great grandfather in 1860 should have been inherited by him in turn, like his father and grandfather.

The judgment of the High Court

Judicial review proceedings were commenced by Mr Patrick Reen in August 2008, and when the matter came before the High Court, Herbert J. concluded that the application was “completely out of time” and that there was no evidence to excuse the delay.

Mr Reen sought to quash:

Herbert J. commented: “You have a half share in the pub” and that “You are tenant in common with the beneficiary of your late sister’s estate”.

Herbert J. dismissed the application for judicial review and stated that it was “an utterly unmeritorious claim”.

Discussion and Conclusion

The Court heard that that over several years, Mr Reen was actively involved in running the public house but that changed because of differences that had arisen between Mr Reen and his late sister.

Mr Reen, his mother and his sister came to an arrangement whereby there was a deed of transfer of the folio comprising the public house in 1983 to Mr Reen but unfortunately, differences arose between Mr Reen and his late sister. Ultimately, they became involved in litigation in 1989 in which a declaration was made that Catherine Reen was the full owner of those lands and Mr Reen was enjoined from claiming ownership of those lands or any part thereof and was also enjoined from interfering with the affairs of his late sister and particularly in relation to the contract for the letting of those lands.

Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice Dunne recognised Mr Reen’s “deep-seated grievance” but stated that this did not mean he was entitled to issue proceedings seeking leave to apply for judicial review so many years after the events complained of.

No explanation was given by Mr Reen for not bringing such applications within the period permitted for seeking such relief by way of judicial review.

Not only has no extension of time been sought in this case but no good reason had been given as to why the period within which an application to extend time could be made.

Thus, a time limit of six months would have applied in relation to the applications for certiorari, no extension of time was sought and no reason was put forward as to why an extension should be granted.

Stating that there was “…no basis upon which the decision of the High Court in this case could be demonstrated to have been in error” Justice Dunne dismissed the appeal stating that she was satisfied that the order of the High Court dismissing these proceedings was correctly made.