| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # High Court of Ireland Decisions | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >>

  The Estate of Patrick Joseph Quinn, Re (Rev1) [2026] IEHC 188 (23 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2026/2026IEHC188.html
Cite as:
[2026] IEHC 188 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

THE HIGH COURT

PROBATE

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? [2026] IEHC 188

[2025 PO 1289]

---

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICK JOSEPH QUINN, LATE OF 88 THE PINES, HERBERT PARK LANE, BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION ACT, 1965

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY PAUL QUINN AND CARMEL CULLEN

---

---

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Siobh?n Stack delivered 23 rd March, 2026.

?Introduction

**

1. Patrick Joseph Quinn late of 88 the Pines, Herbert Park Lane, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, ("the Testator") died 31 May, 2024, aged 97, divorced and leaving no surviving issue, parent or sibling.

2. The Testator lived for many years in the United States where he was married and subsequently divorced, but moved back to Ireland in or about 1986 and lived in this country thereafter. It is clear that he was domiciled in Ireland on the date of his death.

3. The Testator made at least six wills in his lifetime, the earliest apparently being a will made in California on 28 March, 2013. However, he made five subsequent wills in Ireland, and these are dated: 24 May, 2017, 25 October, 2019, 4 October, 2021, 31 January, 2024, and 13 February, 2024. (It appears that the Testator omitted a beneficiary from his will on 31 January, 2024, and executed a fresh will less than two weeks later in order to rectify that omission. This is not material to the issue for determination here.)

4. The applicants are two of the Testator's 20 nieces and nephews, many of whom are named as beneficiaries in the various wills. The second applicant, Ms. Cullen, is named as an executor in each of the Testator's five Irish wills.

5. The Testator's last will, executed on 13 February, 2024, ("the February, 2024 Will") contains the following revocation clause: -

" I, Patrick J. Quinn ... HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and Testamentary Disposition heretofore made by me dealing with my estate in the Republic of Ireland or to which the Law of the Republic of Ireland applies only. *** This **** revocation does not affect any Will or other testamentary disposition I may previously have made dealing with my property in other Jurisdictions."*

6. This revocation clause was also used in the wills of 31 January, 2024, and 4 October, 2021. It was not used in the Will of 25 October, 2019, ("the 2019 Will") which expressly revoked "all former Wills, Codicils or other Testamentary Instruments at any time by me heretofore made."

7. That same general revocation clause was used in the will of 24 May, 2017. The 2017 and 2019 wills were made by the Testator's then solicitors. However, he went to new solicitors when he went to change his will on 4 October, 2021 ("the 2021 Will").

Irish law and the Testator's moveable assets situate abroad

8. The issue which has arisen for determination is that the Testator died leaving a substantial Irish estate (gross value ?817,369.97, net value ?804,959.33) but also leaving an investment with the US-based investment firm, Charles Schwab, which apparently takes the form of shares registered in the United Kingdom, and which was valued at US$52,709.29 at the date of his death. It seems that that portion of the Testator's estate will need to be administered in the England and Wales rather than in the United States, but nothing turns on this for the purposes of this judgment as, either way, it seems a foreign grant will have to be extracted to deal with that investment. It is material, however, that this investment constitutes moveable property situate outside the jurisdiction.

9. The questions which now arise for determination are which, if any, of the Testator's wills governs the testamentary succession to that investment fund, and which will or wills should be admitted to probate in this jurisdiction. Application was made in the ordinary way for a Grant of Probate in respect of the February, 2024 Will, and the Probate Officer has queried whether the 2019 Will should also be admitted to probate. This issue arises because the revocation clause used in the last three wills, that is, those executed from 4 October, 2021, onwards, suggests that it is not intended by those wills to revoke any earlier will insofar as it deals with the foreign estate of the Testator.

10. It is settled as a matter of common law, applicable also in this jurisdiction, that extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the animus revocandi of a testator. Section 90 of the Succession Act, 1965, does not apply to this enquiry as it is not an exercise in construing the will, but one of deciding which (if any) testamentary papers should be admitted to probate, albeit that a court will require cogent evidence before departing from the clear meaning of an express revocation clause, particularly one drafted with the benefit of legal advice: see the discussion in Re James Browne, deceased [2024] IEHC 13.

11. However, in this case, the revocation clause in the February, 2024 Will is in fact somewhat ambiguous. This is because it purports to revoke all wills not only dealing with the Testator's estate in the Republic of Ireland but also the Testator's estate " to which the Law of the *** Republic of Ireland applies". In fact, it is the *lex domicilii which governs the testamentary succession to moveable goods, even if they are situate outside the State in which the testator was domiciled on the date of death. This is clearly stated in Re Adams, Deceased: Bank of Ireland Trustee Co. v. Adams [1967] I.R. 424, where this Court (Budd J.) (at pp. 453-4) approved the statement of Lord Cranworth to that effect in Whicker v. Hume (1858) 7 H.L.C. 124, at p. 156.

12. Binchy, Irish Conflicts of Law, (Butterworths (Ireland) Ltd, 1988) points out (at p. 430) that this general rule in Irish law is shared in other common law jurisdictions, and it is stated in Cheshire, North & Fawcett, "Private International Law", 15 th ed., (Oxford University Press, 2017) at p. 1339, as follows:

"The general rule ... is that testamentary succession to movables is governed exclusively by the law of the domicile of the deceased as it existed at the time of his death. When a testator dies domiciled abroad leaving assets in England, it is true that probate must be taken out in England, and it is also true that the assets must be administered in England according to English law, but nevertheless all questions concerning beneficial succession under a will must be decided in accordance with the law of domicile. The duty of the executor is to ascertain who, by the law of domicile, is entitled under the will and, once that is ascertained, to distribute the property accordingly."

13. As the Testator was domiciled in Ireland at the date of his death, Irish law is the lex domicilii and his investment with Charles Schwab, consisting of moveable property, is property to which Irish law applies.

14. Therefore, on the facts, the Testator's "estate in the Republic of Ireland" is not one and the same as his estate "to which the Law of the Republic of Ireland applies". The first portion of the revocation clause, therefore, purports to revoke all earlier wills which dealt with both the Testator's estate in this jurisdiction and foreign assets to which Irish law applies.

15. However, the second sentence of the revocation clause suggests that it is not intended to revoke any earlier will which deals with the Testator's foreign estate. This particular revocation clause can, therefore be regarded as ambiguous, although I stress that extrinsic evidence is admissible even where a revocation clause is not ambiguous.

**

Evidence as to animus revocandi

16. There is no extrinsic evidence of the Testator's intentions as to the effect of the revocation clauses in the 2017 and 2019 Wills, as these wills were made by a former solicitor and no attendances relating to the instructions or for the execution of those wills are available. However, the instructions for the 2021 Will (the first of three to be made with the solicitors who drew the Testator's last will in February, 2024) are quite clear. They are set out in an attendance of 24 September, 2021, containing the Testator's instructions for updating his will; they are reiterated in a letter to the Testator dated 4 October, 2021, which was given to the Testator by hand, apparently immediately after executing his will, and under cover of which he was given a copy of his 2021 Will; and they are repeated in an attendance of the meeting with the Testator on 4 October, 2021, at which the 2021 Will was executed, and which was typed up on 6 October, 2021.

17. All of these documents show quite clearly that the Testator's instructions were that the 2021 Will was not to apply to his foreign assets, and this aspect of the evidence is therefore to the effect that the Testator did not intend to revoke any earlier will which might apply to those assets. The other significant aspect of the instructions given by the Testator to his solicitors at the time of the execution of the 2021 Will, was that he was in the process of disposing of his foreign assets and anticipated that there would be no such assets in his estate. As a result, the Testator was satisfied to confine the effect of his 2021 Will to his assets within this State.

18. The Testator gave no specific instructions regarding his foreign estate when drawing up the Wills executed in January and February, 2024, but the only reasonable inference is that, from October, 2021, onwards, the Testator believed that he would have disposed of his foreign assets before he died and that none of his subsequent wills would apply to any of his assets situate abroad. For that reason, the evidence relating to the Testator's intention when giving instructions for and executing his 2021 Will are material to the later wills which he made, as this seems to have been his continuing intention throughout.

19. Furthermore, while the Testator expressed an intention to dispose of all of his foreign assets prior to his death, I do not think the evidence supports a finding that the Testator intended to revoke all of his wills and risk an intestacy in relation to any foreign estate in his ownership at the date of his death. The various wills made show that the Testator was choosing between various nieces and nephews when giving instructions for the residuary clauses in his various wills, and that he also wished to make charitable bequests, albeit that his preferred charities varied from time to time. I think the correct assessment of the available evidence is that the Testator wished to dispose of his entire estate himself, either by inter vivos disposition or in his will, and that he did not intend any of his assets to be dealt with on intestacy.

20. That being the case, it is my view that the 2024 Will was not intended to revoke any earlier will dealing with the Testator's foreign estate and that the 2019 Will has not been revoked so far as the Charles Schwab investment is concerned. (It should be noted that this comment applies to any moveable assets held abroad, though it does not appear that there are any other such assets.)

21. As a result, the investment falls to be distributed in accordance with the residuary clause in the 2019 Will rather than the February, 2024 Will, and it will therefore be divided in shares of varying proportions between 12 of the Testator's nieces and nephews, one grand-nephew, and various charities.

22. I am told that, had the February, 2024, Will applied to the Charles Schwab investment, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul would have been the residuary legatee. However, I am not sure that is correct as the preceding clauses of the Will are drafted so as to deal with the Testator's entire estate, with the Society receiving a 33 per cent share.

23. In any event, the Charles Schwab investment will now be disposed of in accordance with the terms of the residuary clause of the 2019 Will, which means that it will be divided between 13 family members and four charities (one of which is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul). The Society will, therefore, receive a much smaller share of the Schwab investment than had the February, 2024 Will governed its distribution. However, it should be noted that, like the family members who stood to lose or gain depending on the outcome of this application, the Society has taken a neutral stance and has not sought to be heard on this application.

Conclusion

**

24. The extrinsic evidence shows that the Testator did not intend his 2021 Will or any subsequent will to apply to his foreign estate. As a consequence, the 2019 Will continues to apply to the Charles Schwab investment, which I am told is the only foreign asset held by the Testator at the date of his death. In due course, it is the 2019 Will which will have to be admitted to probate in the relevant foreign jurisdiction, which it seems will be either the relevant American State, or England and Wales, the latter being the more likely.

25. As the 2019 Will does not apply to any assets situate in this jurisdiction, the general position is that it should not be admitted to probate in this State, though there may be an exception if it is intended to bring the foreign assets into this State: Re Coode (1867) L.R. 1 P. & D. 449. Such a grant might, perhaps, be useful if the investment were to be encashed and transferred to an account in this State, for onward distribution to the beneficiaries entitled to it under the 2019 Will.

26. I will therefore hear the applicants on whether the 2019 will should be admitted to probate in this jurisdiction. On this point, I note that the first named applicant is not named as executor in the 2019 Will, which names Ms. Cullen and another of the Deceased's nephews as executor, and this is another complicating factor.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2026/2026IEHC188.html