THE REPRESENTATIVES of the estate of the late Celine Cawley, whose husband Eamonn Lillis is serving a sentence for her manslaughter, have secured their costs of a High Court action over the couple’s joint assets.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy yesterday ruled the costs of the action by Ms Cawley’s daughter Georgia, brother Christopher and sister Susanna should be deducted from proceeds of the sale of the assets at issue before those proceeds are evenly distributed between the Cawley estate and Lillis.
Mr Lillis must pay his own costs of the action, the judge directed.
Last December, Ms Justice Laffoy ruled, under existing law, Lillis (53) is entitled to his half-interest in assets jointly owned by himself and the late Ms Cawley (46).
He was convicted of her manslaughter at their home in December 2008 and is serving a sentence of six years and 11 months.
Christopher and Susanna, as joint executors of the Cawley estate, and subsequently Georgia – who was joined in the proceedings on the instructions of the judge – had asked the court to prevent Lillis securing any interest in about €1 million worth of assets jointly owned by him and his wife.
Those assets included the family home at Rowan Hill, Howth, worth about €800,000, an apartment in Sutton, worth about €190,000 and about €68,000 in investments and bonds.
An agreement was reached last week as to how the 50/50 split of the assets should proceed following the judge’s ruling that Lillis was entitled to a half share of the assets.
The issue of costs of the action remained and the Cawley side contended they should get costs on grounds including alleged failure by Lillis to engage with their side until six days before the case got under way.
Lillis’s counsel argued that they were entitled to their costs given his offer to divide the assets equally, even though that was “at the 11th hour”.
Yesterday, Ms Justice Laffoy said, while the case had raised a novel and difficult point of law, in essence it involved a contest between Ms Cawley’s estate and Lillis as to the beneficial ownership of jointly held assets.
The judge said the proceedings were necessary because Lillis did not respond to five letters from the Cawley side as to what claim he was making to the assets.