In the matter of Rose Marie Lappin (Deceased) and Eileen Courtney and Brendan Lappin
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Scoffield J |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICh 14 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 07 September 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICh 14
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO11916
ICOS No: 19/109976/01
Delivered: 07/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
CHANCERY DIVISION
___________
IN THE MATTER OF
ROSE MARIE LAPPIN (DECEASED)
BETWEEN:
EILEEN COURTNEY
Applicant (Respondent)
and
BRENDAN LAPPIN
Respondent (Appellant)
___________
Bobbie-Leigh Herdman (instructed by John J Rice & Co, Solicitors) for the applicant
The respondent, Mr Lappin, appeared in person
___________
SCOFFIELD J
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by Mr Brendan Lappin against an order made by
Master Hardstaff, dated 4 March 2022, whereby he ordered that the appellant be
removed as an executor and personal representative of the estate of his mother,
Rose Marie Lappin (“the deceased” and “the testatrix”). Master Hardstaff’s order
also expressly prohibited Mr Lappin from extracting a grant of representation in the
said estate in this jurisdiction; and granted leave to the remaining executor
(Mrs Eileen Courtney, the applicant for the order appealed against and the
respondent in the present appeal) to continue the administration of the deceased’s
estate, including leave to apply for a grant of probate of the deceased’s will.
[2] Ms Herdman, who appeared for Mrs Courtney, provided helpful written
submissions dealing with the relevant law and made succinct oral submissions.
Mr Lappin appeared in person and represented himself. Although the content of
2
some of his representations was highly contentious and strongly refuted on behalf of
the respondent, he made his submissions calmly, clearly and with courtesy to the
court. I am grateful to each of them for their presentation of the parties’ respective
cases.
[3] The parties agreed that, since the appeal is a de novo hearing, the respondent
(as the moving party below) should present her case first. I was prepared to vary the
order of presentation in the event that this would have been of assistance to
Mr Lappin in presenting his case; but he did not consider this necessary. Both
parties also agreed that, as occurred before the Master, the case should proceed on
the affidavit evidence alone, without oral testimony or cross-examination.
[4] At the commencement of the hearing, I encouraged the parties to engage with
each other in order to ascertain whether some agreed compromise could be reached
which accommodated both sides’ concerns, perhaps by the appointment of an
agreed independent personal representative. The parties took a short while to
explore this but it became apparent relatively quickly that a mutually agreeable
accommodation could not be reached and the court would therefore be required to
adjudicate upon the application.
Factual background
[5] There is a considerable history of family acrimony in this case, of which it is
necessary to provide only a brief synopsis. The testatrix who is at the centre of these
proceedings is Mrs Rose Marie Lappin. She died on 14 March 2019, aged 93. The
dispute between the two factions of her children who are represented in these
proceedings began some time before her death.
[6] The deceased had four children. They are Eileen Courtney (the respondent);
Brendan Lappin (the appellant); Teresa McAvinchey; and Niall Lappin. As noted
above, Mrs Lappin was 93 years old when she died and was widowed at the time of
the death, her husband having died in June 2009.
[7] By the terms of her will made on 1 September 2008, the deceased left her
entire estate to her husband Patrick Joseph Lappin but, in the event that he had
pre-deceased her (as indeed he had), the estate was to be divided equally between
her four children as tenants in common. Both the respondent and the appellant were
designated as executors.
[8] During the latter years of their mother’s life, Mrs Lappin’s children could not
agree amongst themselves in respect of welfare decisions in relation to her.
Mr Paul Dougan, solicitor, of John J Rice & Co, Solicitors, was appointed as
controller ad interim in relation to Mrs Lappin by order of Master Wells on 22 April
2016. The primary purpose of this order was to make immediate provision to act on
behalf of the patient in order to deal with the costs of her care and to manage her
To continue reading
Request your trial