The High Court has ruled that Bank of Scotland plc’s proceedings against the administrators of John O’Meara’s estate were properly constituted and could continue, even though the formal grant of administration issued six days after the proceedings began.
The decision, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 14 December 2012, resolved a preliminary issue agreed by the parties during the bank’s application for summary judgment. It did not determine whether the estate owed the bank money or decide the summary judgment application.
The bank’s proceedings were issued on 18 November 2011, naming Randal Gray and Mark Edmund Doyle as administrators. Their letters of administration with will annexed were granted on 24 November. The objection was that they had not yet received the grant when the proceedings were issued and therefore could not be sued in their representative capacity at that time.
Before the proceedings began, however, the High Court had made an order on 11 July 2011 under section 27(4) of the Succession Act 1965. The order allowed Gray and Doyle to apply for the grant. Justice Finlay Geoghegan found that, in substance, the order appointed them as administrators, subject to completing the procedural steps needed for the grant to issue.
The judge distinguished this situation from earlier cases concerning claims brought before an administrator had received a grant. She concluded that Gray and Doyle had a status in relation to the estate after the July order and were, at minimum, contingently competent to represent it when the bank issued its proceedings. The grant later issued to them expressly recorded their appointment by the court under section 27(4).
The bank had sought repayment of €14,997,912.20, plus interest, in a September 2011 demand letter concerning facilities provided to the deceased. That sum was a demand, not a finding by the court. The judgment also noted that whether the estate was insolvent had not been determined.
The court concluded that the proceedings were not a nullity and were maintainable against Gray and Doyle as administrators. It cautioned that its decision did not address what would happen if a person appointed under section 27(4) failed to complete the required formalities and no grant issued.