A son and brother have fought over the posthumous inheritance of their mother and sister caught up in the Horizon computer scandal with the case reaching the high court last week.
Dawn O’Connell had an exemplary record as post mistress at a Post Office branch she had managed in Northolt, north west London before she was convicted of false accounting over alleged cash shortfalls. One of hundreds of workers wrongly convicted, O’Connell was handed a 12-month suspended sentence at Harrow Crown Court in August 2008. The court heard how she struggled to cope with the stigma of the sentence, and she suffered sever bouts of depression in the aftermath. She succumbed to alcoholism aged 57 in September 202, just seven months before the Appeal Court overturned her conviction.
She was awarded a posthumous £578,000 compensation package which for the mostpart made up her estate and was due to go to her only son Matthew O’Connell.
The case arose after her brother Mark O’Connell staked a £333,000 claim to the inheritance saying his sister owed him money when she died and also wanted him to share her compensation as he had helped her pursue it. He claimed he helped Ms O’Connell financially over the years as well as playing a key part in pursuing her claim when she was too unwell to do so herself, on the basis that they would split any payout.
His barrister Erol Topal told the court:
“He claims just under £333,000 from the estate pursuant to an agreement he reached with Dawn prior to her death. Mark had supported her to make a claim for damages arising out of the Post Office Horizon scandal – a claim she could not have pursued without his substantial help and support. She agreed that, if successful, she would share equally with him any damages, and repay him other sums he’d provided to support her during difficult episodes in her life. If nothing was recovered, it was agreed that Dawn would owe him nothing – including pre-existing debts.
“If, as Mark contends, his late sister reached the agreement he asserts, it is reasonable to expect that but for her untimely death his sister would have honoured that agreement. Should Mark be prevented from making his claim, (her) estate would benefit from a significant windfall which – on Mark’s case – would not have been consistent with Dawn’s wishes.”
The case reached the High Court last week but Mark O’Connell failed to file relevant and vital papers on time with the judge now rejecting his case, which she said was out of time. The ruling effectively now blocks Mark from pursuing his claim against his sister’s estate, although he still has the right to try and appeal the decision.
Greg Leckey, barrister for Matthew O’Connell, in court argued that Mark’s legal team had clear notice that it was vital not to miss this deadline, and there was no compelling good reason for that failure. Further delays served to “stymie administration of the estate”, prevented distribution of assets, and also impacted on Matthew’s mental health.
In a lengthy exchange between the barristers the broken deadline occurred despite Mark O’Connell’s solicitor’s “diligent” steps to ensure compliance by attending court in person with the necessary documents the day before the deadline having been instructed to insert the envelope containing the court papers into the drop box at court. He added that eliminating Mark’s claim before it could even get off the ground would be a drastic consequence for a mistake which was “no fault of his own”, while it would also be unjust to bar his case from being heard.
Ruling, Master Lampert said the order requiring Mark to file his claim within a strict deadline was “intended to provide finality” for Matthew if the papers were not lodged in time. She labelled the breach “serious and significant” and said there was “no good reason” for the delay. ‘The order was intended to be draconian in circumstances where (Mark O’Connell) had failed to advance his long-intimated claim, which was obstructing the effective administration of this estate,’ added the judge.
She also refused him permission to appeal her decision on the basis the purpose of the order was for it to have ‘draconian consequences.’
Although Master Lampert rejected his case, Mark O’Connell still has three weeks in which to decide whether to pursue an appeal before a more senior judge.
