The High Court was “seriously and deliberately” misled by applicants who secured an order restraining the sale of Co Offaly lands, a judge has said.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said his colleague who granted the order last July was not told of a campaign of trespass and harassment by applicant Miriam Bracken’s husband, Colm Bracken.
The motivation of Ms Bracken, representing the interests of her two sons as beneficiaries in their late uncle’s will, in seeking the orders was “completely wrongheaded”, the judge said in ruling the original orders should not be extended.
The dispute arose out of the deaths and wills of brothers Tom and Larry Bracken, who were uncles of Colm Bracken, of Moy Glas Park, Lucan, Dublin.
Tom, who died in March 2016, left everything to Larry. However, as Larry predeceased him, in 2014, Tom’s estate fell to be administered in accordance with the rules of intestate succession, the judge said.
Larry’s will bequeathed his house contents, livestock and lands to Colm Bracken, for his lifetime and thereafter to Colm and Miriam Bracken’s two sons.
The personal representative of Larry’s estate made a claim against the personal representative of Tom’s estate, who entered a robust defence.
The action settled shortly before it was due to be heard, and was approved, due to the involvement of Miriam and Colm Bracken’s minor children, by Mr Justice O’Moore last December.
Beneficial interest
The judge said the settlement acknowledged Larry’s estate holds a two-third beneficial interest in the ownership of the lands in Kilclare, Co Offaly, while Tom’s estate holds the other third.
Both estate administrators confirmed the share of the net sale proceeds of the lands for Larry’s estate will be distributed to Colm Bracken and his two children, the judge said.
However, Paul McDonnell, solicitor for the representative of Tom’s estate, said Colm Bracken “repeatedly requested and indeed demanded” that the Kilclare Lands would be sold privately to him or would be severed to ensure he obtains a self-selected portion. The representative “quite properly” opted for a public sale, the judge said.
Mr McDonnell said Colm Bracken changed or interfered with locks at the gates and house on the lands, blocked entrances to sheds on the lands, harassed workers on the lands and refused to remove his jeep from the lands.
Threatened with legal action, Colm Bracken, through his solicitors, gave an “unequivocal undertaking” that he will not attend the property pending further agreement. There were subsequent incidents at the site that appeared to be a breach of this undertaking, the judge said.
Last July Miriam Bracken applied, while only her side was represented, for High Court orders preventing an auction of the lands proceeding that day.
Whatever Ms Bracken knew about her husband’s endeavours, there is “much that she could have known had she made the simplest enquiries”, Mr Justice O’Moore said. It was clearly material for the issuing judge to be informed of Colm Bracken’s “strenuous and unlawful efforts” to interfere in the sale of the property.
Important correspondence and information were kept from the issuing judge by Ms Bracken, Mr Justice O’Moore said. The material non-disclosure was “profound” and “very disturbing”, while the alleged concerns of Ms Bracken and her lawyers were “completely groundless”.
There was no serious effort made before Mr Justice O’Moore to stand up the case made earlier that the settlement agreement meant no money would be paid to the Bracken children once the lands were sold, he said.
The judge refused to extend the orders due to the “active misleading” of his colleague, the lack of a serious issue to be tried, the “wrongheaded” motivation of the plaintiffs, and that the orders would frustrate the implementation of a court-approved settlement.
The judge acceded to an application from the administrator of Tom Bracken’s estate, represented by Micheál O’Connell SC and Vincent Nolan BL, for Ms Bracken’s wider case to be struck out against the estate as it is bound to fail.
