No Tangible Benefit, No Standing: Restricting Probate Challenges to Interested Parties

Introduction

In Lynch & Ors v Murphy [2025] IEHC 193, the High Court of Ireland considered an application to strike out a High Court challenge to a California will and the grant of probate made in favour of a nephew, Gregory Olan Murphy. The plaintiffs—Frances Lynch, Hugh Fitzgibbon and York Designs Limited—were parties to separate Circuit Court proceedings against the estate as executor. They had no testamentary interest under the will, nor would they benefit on intestacy. This judgment addresses whether they had locus standi and whether their proceedings amounted to an abuse of process designed to delay the lower-court suits.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr Justice Mulcahy granted the defendant’s motion to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim. He held that:

The plaintiffs had no prospect of personal benefit even if they succeeded in invalidating the will or revoking probate.
They could not derive standing merely from their status as parties in unrelated litigation against the executor.
The public-interest argument and reliance on Vella v Morelli were misplaced because the plaintiffs lacked any direct interest in the estate.
Under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and Order 19, rule 28, proceedings that confer no tangible benefit on the claimant constitute an abuse of process and must be dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd v Ireland [2022] IECA 23 – Principles for striking out for abuse of process, bound-to-fail and frivolous or vexatious claims.
Lopes v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 21 – Distinction between Rule-based strikes and inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse where facts are implausible.
Gilchrist v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2017] IECA 190 – No-benefit jurisdiction: claims that confer no tangible benefit on a plaintiff are an abuse of process.
Rippington v Ireland [2019] IEHC 353 – Standing to challenge probate requires a personal interest or benefit from the estate.
Bissessur v McMillen [2024] IEHC 23 – No public-interest exception for non-beneficiaries challenging orders obtained by fraud in probate.
Vella v Morelli [1968] IR 11 – Costs decision in a bona fide challenge by an interested party, not a standing authority for non-beneficiaries.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied two parallel strike-out tests: under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (frivolous, vexatious or bound to fail) and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction (abuse of process). The key steps were:

Identify whether any conceivable benefit could flow to the plaintiffs from rescinding probate or will. None existed—plaintiffs were neither beneficiaries under the will nor on intestacy.
Accept the plaintiffs’ pleaded facts for strike-out purposes but consider the wider context, including affidavits from the deceased’s sons and the witnesses to execution.
Distinguish legitimate public-interest standing (not at issue here) from a generalized right to challenge wills; confirm that locus standi remains confined to those with a real interest.
Reject the plaintiffs’ argument that delaying the Circuit Court suits or installing their own ad litem administrator conferred a “tangible benefit.”
Conclude that proceeding solely to obstruct parallel litigation is an abuse of process without prospect of success.

Impact

This decision reinforces that:

Only beneficiaries under a will or potential heirs on intestacy have standing to challenge probate or the validity of a will.
Courts will strike out collateral challenges brought by litigants seeking to delay or leverage unrelated proceedings.
The “no tangible benefit, no standing” principle curbs abusive litigation and protects judicial resources.
Public-interest arguments offer no standing bypass: absent a personal stake, a claimant cannot invoke the court’s inherent jurisdiction to police estate matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Locus standi: Legal standing; the requirement that a litigant must have a sufficient personal interest in the subject matter.
Abuse of process: Misuse of the court’s procedures for collateral or improper purposes, e.g. delay or harassment.
Inherent jurisdiction: The court’s authority to dismiss suits that are bound to fail or are an abuse of its processes, beyond specific rules.
Order 19, rule 28: Part of the Rules of the Superior Courts allowing summary dismissal of frivolous, vexatious or hopeless cases.
Testamentary capacity: The mental ability required to make a valid will—understanding the act of will-making and its effects.
Undue influence: Improper persuasion that overcomes a testator’s free will.
Administrator ad litem: A court-appointed temporary administrator to represent an estate in limited proceedings.

Conclusion

Lynch & Ors v Murphy cements the doctrine that litigants without any real interest or prospective benefit cannot maintain challenges to wills or probate. It draws a clear boundary around standing in succession disputes, deters strategic collateral litigation and underscores the court’s duty to protect its processes from abuse. The ruling ensures that only those with a genuine legal stake in an estate may invoke judicial scrutiny of testamentary documents.