No costs orders made in probate proceedings where two brothers acted unreasonably

Probate - costs - J.D. died in July 2005 and was survived by his wife and five children - his step-brother was his executor -he devised his house on four acres and household chattels to his wife, for her life, dum sola, with a right of maintenance and support from the balance of the farm - J devised 50 acres to H and to son 2 jointly, another 40 acres to daughter 1 and 2 and son 1 - he devised the balance of 240 acres the house and four acres after the death of H., all of his stock and farm machinery, and all of his entitlements under the single payment scheme, to son 3 - soon after J's death, D.B. renounced - by notice given on 16th August, 2015 the wife elected to take her legal right share and soon after purportedly appropriated the family home and 108 acres in three identified plots in satisfaction of that share - the wife died on 25th July, 2008 and her will, which was also made on 16th August, 2005 H. appointed son 2 her executor, and devised, or purported to devise, the house and contents and the surrounding four acres to her five children in equal shares, and the residue of her estate to son 2 - On 5th October, 2010 son 2 proved his mothers will - the grant of probate shows a gross estate of €891,471, and a net value of €885,971 - on 5th May, 2011 a grant of letters of administration with will annexed of the estate of J. was granted to son 2 - on 27th September, 2011 son 1 made an application to the High Court under s. 117 of the Succession Act, 1965 for a declaration that J. had failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for him, and for such provision from J.’s estate as to the court should seem just - on his application, son 1 put a value of €3.1 million on the farm - in 2014 prior to a hearing date, with the agreement of son 3, daughter 2, and daughter 1, and son 2 in his representative and personal capacities, son 1’s claim was settled for €150,000 in addition to his “distributive share of the net value of the lands conferred on him jointly with his sisters …plus a one fifth share of the net value of the dwelling house and four acres appropriated by his mother towards satisfaction of her legal right share” and agreed costs of €82,500 - by plenary summons issued on 17th June, 2015 son 3 and daughter 2 issued proceedings against son 2 claiming an order revoking the grant of letters of administration in the estate of J.; an order appointing an independent administrator; an order directing son 2 to account for the assets of the estate; a declaration that the purported election and appropriation by H. were void - not because they were not permitted by the Succession Act but on the grounds of incapacity and/or had been procured by undue influence; a declaration that H.’s will was void on the grounds of incapacity and undue influence; an order for the administration of J.’s and H.’s estates by the court; damages, and costs - on 13th October, 2015 an appearance was entered on behalf of son 2 in the plenary proceedings - the notice of entry of appearance called for delivery of a statement of claim, but that was never done - son 3 issued a motion on 24th September, 2015 for the revocation of the grant in the estate of J.; an order appointing an independent administrator; an order for an account; and an order directing son 2 to comply with the settlement agreement of the s. 117 proceedings - son 3’s motion in the plenary proceedings was countered by a motion issued on behalf of son 2 on 27th November, 2015 to strike out some of the reliefs claimed by the plenary summons on the grounds that they were frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail - the motions were dealt with in mediation whereby an agreement was signed in January 2016 - this settlement was made a rule of court in April 2016 - further motions were issued and on 2nd February, 2017 the Court noting an undertaking to do so, ordered that son 2 furnish a draft estate account by 5.00 p.m. on Friday 10th February, 2017 - son 3 made issue that the figures on the account were not broken down or vouched - son 3 and daughter 2 re-entered proceedings and agreed an issue paper with 11 issues - each side submitted that the other has acted unreasonably and has impeded the administration of the estates and the Court accept the submission of both sides - money taken from estate has to be put back - interest and penalties arising are the expenses of the estate - order directing the preparation, in each estate, of a draft estate account, a draft cash account, and a draft distribution account - admitted liabilities to be paid - son 3 is accountable to the estate for the full value of the stock and machinery and the value of any fodder removed by him from the farm - order that son 3 is not entitled to be paid any costs incurred by him in connection with the s. 117 application of son 1 against the estate of J - cross order of no costs.