13th January 2026
Why missing beneficiaries remain one of the highest-risk areas in estate administration
For probate and private client practitioners, few issues give rise to greater residual risk than the distribution of assets where a beneficiary cannot be located.
What may initially appear to be a practical difficulty can, in reality, escalate into a breach of trust, personal liability for personal representatives or trustees, and costly proceedings long after an estate was assumed to be fully administered.
Professional guidance, including that reflected in STEP materials, is clear on one central point:
the absence of a beneficiary does not suspend the obligation to identify beneficiaries correctly and distribute the estate in accordance with the will or the rules of intestacy.
This article examines:
What probate and private client practitioners should do when a beneficiary is missing
Why informal assumptions or limited searches are increasingly inadequate
How the courts assess reasonable enquiries
Practical safeguards that reduce exposure while maintaining proportionality
The legal duty does not stop because a beneficiary is difficult to find
A consistent theme in Irish succession and trust law is that personal representatives and trustees owe active obligations, not passive ones.
Those obligations include:
Identifying all persons entitled to benefit under a will or on intestacy
Taking reasonable and proportionate steps to locate them
Distributing the estate strictly in accordance with the will, trust instrument, or the rules of intestacy
Importantly, good faith alone does not provide protection.
When disputes arise, the courts assess liability by reference to the process followed and the diligence exercised, rather than by reference to the eventual outcome.
Accordingly, where personal representatives or trustees distribute an estate on the assumption that a beneficiary is deceased, estranged, or unlikely to come forward — and that assumption later proves incorrect — they may remain personally liable for the resulting loss.
What reasonable enquiries actually mean in practice
One of the most common misconceptions in Irish probate practice is that placing advertisements or conducting basic online searches will, of itself, discharge the duty to enquire.
In practice, what constitutes reasonable enquiries depends on the particular circumstances of the estate, including:
The value and nature of the assets
The number of potential beneficiaries
The complexity of the family structure
Patterns of emigration or migration
Cross-border elements
The availability and reliability of documentary records
As these factors become more complex, the standard of enquiry expected by the courts correspondingly increases.
Rather than applying a rigid checklist, courts consider whether the steps taken were proportionate, logical, and capable of withstanding scrutiny if later challenged.
Where estates involve:
Historic emigration
Foreign domicile or residence
Informal family arrangements
Name variations or gaps in civil registration
Courts increasingly expect structured, evidence-based investigations, rather than informal or assumption-led searches.
Advertising alone is rarely a complete solution
Advertising for missing beneficiaries has long formed part of Irish probate practice. However, it is widely understood to represent only one element of a broader enquiry process.
Advertising may:
Evidence an attempt to notify unknown claimants
Offer limited protection in respect of unknown interests
However, advertising does not:
Establish entitlement
Resolve questions of identity
Prove family relationships
Replace genealogical evidence
For that reason, in estates of significant value or complexity, reliance on advertising alone may appear superficial, particularly where further enquiries were both available and proportionate.
Benjamin Orders: a safeguard, not a shortcut
Where beneficiaries cannot be located despite reasonable enquiries, personal representatives or trustees may consider applying to the court for a Benjamin Order, permitting distribution on the basis that a missing person is presumed not to exist or is deemed to have predeceased.
It is critical to understand that the courts treat Benjamin Orders as a measure of last resort.
Applicants must demonstrate credible, well-documented enquiries. Inadequate investigations weaken, rather than support, the application.
In other words, a Benjamin Order depends on proper diligence — it does not replace it.
Applications supported by professional genealogical evidence, which clearly sets out:
Who was searched for
Which records were examined
Why further enquiries would be disproportionate
Are materially stronger than those based on informal assertions or limited searches.
Why incorrect distribution creates long-term exposure
One of the most frequently underestimated risks in estate administration is that liability does not necessarily end when an estate is wound up.
If a missing beneficiary later comes to light:
Personal representatives or trustees may need to compensate that beneficiary personally
Recovery from other beneficiaries may be difficult or impossible
Indemnities and insurance may not respond where enquiries fell short
For this reason, courts and professional bodies consistently emphasise the importance of front-loaded diligence, rather than reliance on remedies after the event.
In many cases, the cost of proper enquiries is modest when compared with the potential exposure arising from an incorrect distribution.
Delegation does not remove responsibility
Personal representatives and trustees may properly delegate investigations, including genealogical enquiries. However, delegation does not absolve responsibility.
Those engaging third-party specialists should:
Select suitably qualified professionals
Define and understand the scope of the investigation
Review conclusions critically
Retain appropriate records
In practical terms, any heir search or beneficiary investigation should produce:
A clear methodology
Evidence drawn from primary sources
Written conclusions capable of withstanding legal scrutiny
Practical safeguards for practitioners
For probate and private client practitioners, the objective is not perfection — it is defensibility.
Practical safeguards include:
Escalating enquiries as complexity increases
Recording decisions and rationale clearly on the probate file
Treating cross-border elements as risk multipliers
Avoiding assumptions based on silence or non-response
Ensuring enquiries can be explained and evidenced years later, if required
When practitioners take a structured and proportionate approach, they can manage missing beneficiary issues without unnecessary delay or expense.
Why specialist support matters in complex cases
As estates increasingly involve international elements and non-traditional family structures, beneficiary identification often requires specialist expertise.
Professional genealogical investigations provide:
Independent, verifiable evidence
Structured methodologies consistent with court expectations
Jurisdictional knowledge across record systems
Clear reporting suitable for file review or court applications
For practitioners, this results in:
Reduced personal exposure
A stronger evidential basis for decisions
Greater confidence when distributing estates
Frequently Asked Questions
What should a personal representative do if a beneficiary cannot be located?
Personal representatives should carry out reasonable and proportionate enquiries, escalating those enquiries where complexity or value justifies it, before seeking directions from the court.
Are personal representatives personally liable for missing beneficiaries?
Yes. Personal representatives may remain personally liable for incorrect distributions if a beneficiary later emerges and the enquiries undertaken were inadequate.
Is advertising enough to protect personal representatives?
No. In complex or higher-value estates, advertising alone is rarely sufficient. Courts increasingly expect structured, evidence-based enquiries.
When is a Benjamin Order appropriate?
Personal representatives or trustees should consider a Benjamin Order only after completing credible, well-documented enquiries and concluding that further searches would be disproportionate.
Conclusion
Missing beneficiaries are not an administrative inconvenience — they represent a genuine legal risk.
For probate and private client practitioners, the key issue is not whether a beneficiary proves easy to locate, but whether the steps taken to identify and locate beneficiaries can withstand scrutiny if later examined.
A disciplined, evidence-led approach protects:
The estate
The beneficiaries
And the professionals responsible for administering both