Executor Expenses and Income on Specific Legacies – New Guidance from Dillon v Connolly [2025] IEHC 424

1. Introduction

Dillon v Connolly ([2025] IEHC 424) arises from the long-running administration of the estates of Matthew and Elizabeth Connolly, a married couple whose combined net worth exceeded €13 million. The plaintiff, David Dillon, is their son-in-law and sole proving executor. The defendant, Mathew James Connolly (“the respondent”), is one of the four residuary beneficiaries and was named (but never proved) as co-executor of his father’s will. After eight years of fractious administration, disputes crystallised around nine discrete issues concerning omitted assets, valuation disagreements and contested expenses. Relying on Order 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“RSC”) Dillon issued a special summons seeking court approval of proposed distributions or, in the alternative, directions as to the correct sums payable. Ms Justice Stack’s decision now supplies much-needed clarity on:

What expenses an executor may properly reimburse from the estate;
The beneficiary’s entitlement to income generated by specific legacies prior to distribution;
The scope of Order 3 jurisdiction for resolving discrete questions in estate administration;
The evidential burden where a beneficiary alleges that assets have been “withheld” by the executor.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court systematically addressed each of the nine objections and ordered corresponding adjustments to the draft estate accounts. Key holdings include:

Jewellery Forms Part of the Estate: Three valuable rings, and potentially other pieces, were in Elizabeth’s possession on death and must be treated as estate assets.
EBS Joint Account: Although standing in the joint names of Elizabeth and Ronan, the funds belonged beneficially to Elizabeth and are correctly credited to the estate (but need not be transferred for administrative convenience).
The Dell (Glengarriff): If no lifetime deed exists, the land falls into Matthew’s estate; otherwise it passes to Ronan by completed gift. Further affidavit evidence invited.
Leeds Building Society Account: Evidence shows Matthew validly transferred the account to a third party before death; accordingly it never formed part of the estate.
Dividends on Shares Bequeathed in specie: Ann and Carol, as specific legatees of Drimnagh Industries shares, are entitled to dividends accruing post-death. Those monies do not enlarge the residue.
Legal Costs of LSRA Complaint: Fees incurred by the executor’s solicitors in defending a beneficiary’s professional-conduct complaint are an overhead of practice, not an estate expense, and cannot be recouped from the estate.
Legal Advice on Power of Sale: By contrast, €3,444 for advice on selling “Bel Air” was properly incurred and is chargeable to the estate.
Contingency Fund (€120,000): Establishing a reserve for anticipated litigation costs is prudent; allegations that the executor would dishonestly retain it were rejected as unfounded.
AIB Grafton St. Account: The jointly-opened account should be closed and the balance transferred into an executor-controlled account; adjustments to follow.

The Court directed the parties to furnish additional affidavits where necessary and indicated that formal orders and costs would be dealt with before the end of the legal year.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Williams, Mortimer & Sunnucks, Executors, Administrators and Probate (22^nd ed.) – relied on for historical exposition of Order 3 procedure and for the principle that income and accretions on specific legacies devolve to the legatee from the date of death.
Ranking, Spicer & Pegler’s Executorship Law & Accounts (21^st ed.) – provided textbook authority, reinforced by 18^th/19^th century cases (Sleech v Thorington; Pollock v Pollock; Lancefield v Iggulden), confirming that dividends, rents and other “fruits” of a specific legacy belong to the specific legatee, not the residue.
Camiveo Ltd v Dunnes Stores [2015] 2 IR 698 – cited on the effect of a signed but unregistered deed: once executed, the transferee holds an equitable title binding the transferor’s successors, influencing the Court’s approach to “The Dell”.
Mussell v Patience [2018] EWHC 430 (Ch.) – adopted in determining when an executor can reimburse legal costs: invoices must (i) evidence actual expenditure and (ii) relate to fair execution of the estate. This supported allowing the €3,444 advice fee yet disallowing LSRA-defence costs.
Howley v McClean [2025] IECA 77 – emphasised that allegations of fraud require cogent evidence, shaping the Court’s stern response to the respondent’s unsubstantiated dishonesty claims.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Justice Stack’s reasoning proceeds from fundamental probate principles:

Situs of Property at Death: Jewellery physically possessed by a deceased is ipso facto estate property, irrespective of informal family understandings.
Joint Accounts – Rebutting Survivorship Presumption: Clear statements by the surviving account-holder (Ronan) that funds belonged to the deceased displaced beneficial survivorship; the executor may treat the balance as an estate asset without empty formal transfers where unnecessary.
Specific Legacy Income: The Court reaffirmed that dividends declared post-death attach beneficially to the legatee. The rule prevents residuary beneficiaries from profiting by delaying administration.
Executor’s Right to Indemnity for Proper Expenses: Drawing on Mussell v Patience, the judgment distinguishes between:
- Expenses incident to administration (recoverable) – e.g., legal advice on exercising a statutory power of sale.
- Expenses incidental to practitioners’ overheads (not recoverable) – e.g., defending an LSRA complaint brought by a non-client.
Order 3 Jurisdiction: The decision illustrates how “individual questions” arising in administration (valuation, asset identification, expense approval) can be efficiently determined by the High Court without commencing plenary proceedings, echoing mid-19^th Chancery reforms.
Burden of Proof on Alleged “Withheld Assets”: Beneficiaries who assert the existence of undisclosed assets bear an evidential burden to produce cogent documentary material; vague insinuations will not shift the onus onto the executor.

3.3 Impact on Future Practice

Dillon v Connolly supplies authoritative Irish guidance on multiple fronts:

Executor Cost Recovery: Firms acting for executors can no longer automatically look to estates to meet the cost of defending professional-conduct complaints. Costs must relate directly to advancing administration, not to protecting solicitors’ own reputational interests.
Income on Specific Bequests: The judgment consolidates, in an Irish context, the English authorities establishing that income from specific legacies accrues to the legatee; practitioners can rely on this principle to resist residuary challenges.
Use of Order 3 Special Summons: The case is a template for invoking Order 3 where a single intractable beneficiary delays distribution. Executors may seek the Court’s imprimatur on distribution proposals, thereby limiting personal exposure.
Beneficiary Conduct & Costs: By labelling certain objections “spurious” and dismissing unsubstantiated fraud claims, the Court signals a willingness to penalise beneficiaries who obstruct orderly administration without evidence.
Practical Administration Steps: The Court emphasised proactive executor control – e.g., closing lingering joint accounts, formally notifying registrars (Verizon/PTSB) of probate status – reinforcing the executor’s duty to gather in all assets.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Proving Executor / Sole Proving Executor: Among named executors, the person who actually extracts the Grant of Probate becomes the “proving executor”. Where co-executors renounce or allow their rights to be reserved, a single “sole proving executor” administers the estate.
Specific Legacy v Residuary Legacy: A specific legacy gifts an identified asset (“my 100 A-shares in X Ltd”). The residue is “everything else left after debts, taxes and specific gifts are settled”.
Income on Specific Legacy: Dividends, rent or other returns generated by a specifically bequeathed asset after the testator’s death belong to the legatee, not the estate.
Order 3 Special Summons: A streamlined High Court procedure for trust/estate matters allowing parties to obtain directions or approvals on discrete issues without full plenary litigation.
LSRA (Legal Services Regulatory Authority): Irish body handling complaints against solicitors/barristers. A complaint found “frivolous or vexatious” is dismissed without full investigation.
Contingency (Retention) Fund: A portion of estate funds retained by the executor to meet anticipated costs (e.g., litigation, tax assessments) before making final distributions.
Donatio Mortis Causa: A “gift in contemplation of death”; a rare doctrine whereby the donor, believing death to be imminent, gifts property conditional upon their death. The Court found no facts supporting such a gift regarding the Leeds account.

5. Conclusion

Dillon v Connolly delivers a robust, practical framework for Irish probate practitioners grappling with hostile beneficiaries and complex asset schedules. Justice Stack clarifies that:

Executors may, and often should, seek High Court endorsement of distribution plans under Order 3 when consensus breaks down.
Only expenses truly incurred for estate administration are recoverable; professional-conduct defence costs lie outside that bracket.
The long-established rule whereby income on specific legacies passes to the specific legatee remains firmly entrenched in Irish law.
Unsupported allegations of fraud or asset concealment will fail; beneficiaries must furnish concrete evidence if they wish to challenge accounts.

Beyond settling one family’s disputes, the judgment sharpens the boundaries of executor liability, beneficiary entitlements and the evidential standards governing estate litigation. Practitioners can now cite Dillon v Connolly as a persuasive authority when advising on (i) charging of legal expenses, (ii) treatment of post-death income from specific bequests, and (iii) strategic deployment of Order 3 applications to break administrative deadlock.