The High Court dismissed a beneficiary’s claim that administrators of the estate of Emily White failed to obtain the best price when selling two family properties. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 1 February 2017 that the claim failed on breach of duty, loss and the statutory protection available to the administrators.
The plaintiff, named in the judgment as Aideen Doyle (otherwise Clodagh White), was one of seven beneficiaries. She argued that the administrators, Niamh and Derval White, should have accepted or pursued an offer from Niall Mellon before a tender sale. The judge said the central issue included whether administrators could be liable despite acting in line with the beneficiaries’ majority wishes.
Mellon made offers of €17 million and then €18 million, with a later indication he might offer €18.5 million. The estate’s professional advisers recommended engaging with him, seeking proof of funds and a higher offer, and moving towards a signed contract. The court found that the administrators followed that advice on 8 March 2007.
Mellon later signed a contract for €19 million, but it was signed “in trust” for an unidentified principal, and the accompanying bank letter said funds would be made available subject to conditions. The judge accepted that the administrators acted on legal advice in declining it. He also found that the decision was unanimous among the beneficiaries, and that after one tender of €15.3 million was received, the advisers recommended negotiating with that bidder and returning to Mellon only if those negotiations failed. The sale was ultimately completed for €16.45 million.
The plaintiff also complained that she was not consulted. The judge found that she had not kept the family informed of her contact details and had been moving between temporary accommodation. He concluded that the administrators could not be faulted for not contacting her in the circumstances. The claim that they should have returned to Mellon after the tender was received had not been pleaded; the judge also found that the administrators followed professional advice on that point.
Separately, the judgment records that the plaintiff did not clearly affirm in evidence that she was Emily White’s daughter, despite the pleadings having been amended by consent to state that status. The judge said he would have dismissed the action on that ground alone if the defendants had pursued the point. He nevertheless decided the claim on its other elements: no breach of duty was established, any hypothetical breach was protected under section 50 of the Succession Act 1965 in the circumstances, and the plaintiff had not proved loss. The dismissal was the court’s order.