Opens in a new tab

Breaking news

Limited Administration Grants: Deliberate Constraints on Estate Representation

Overview of Limited Administration Grants

In certain circumstances, the representation of a deceased individual’s estate proceeds through a limited administration grant, which confers narrowly defined authority for a fixed duration and specific purpose. Whether addressing civil debts, contractual claims, or disputes involving immovable property, this mechanism ensures the estate is managed solely within the confines of an individual legal action.

Specific Appointment and Procedural Prerequisites

The appointment of an administrator under a limited grant is uniquely targeted to address a specific lawsuit, such as a defense in litigation concerning the estate’s assets. The prospective administrator must consent explicitly to this specialized role; however, in the absence of an interested party, creditors may be entitled to apply, thereby safeguarding their constitutionally guaranteed recourse in court.

Prior to the issuance of the limited grant, the registrar must review a certificate from the tax commissioner under Article 7 of Law 78(I)/2000, confirming there is no objection to the grant. Instructions from the court are also required, with the grant’s purpose clearly delineated. Importantly, the absence of movable or immovable property in the deceased’s name does not impede this special appointment.

Restricted Authority and Termination of the Grant

Under Article 19 of the Administration of Estates Law, Cap.189, an administrator granted such limited authority is not afforded the comprehensive duties of an ordinary estate administrator. The administrator’s responsibilities are strictly confined to the designated legal action; once the case reaches its conclusion, the authority conferred by the limited grant terminates, and the administrator loses the right to proceed with any further distribution of the estate.

Court of Appeal Adjudication and Its Implications

The Court of Appeal, in its April 29, 2019 judgement (C.A. E185/2019), reinforced that the role of an administrator with a limited grant is temporary and purpose-specific. In a case involving the estate of a deceased individual where a lawsuit concerning the purchase of a house had reached a final decision, an appellant’s attempt to replace the administrator was dismissed. The court affirmed that once the purpose of the limited grant was fulfilled, the registrar rightfully closed the administration file.

This ruling clarifies that administrators under limited grants are not held to the same management obligations or liabilities as ordinary administrators, thereby insulating them from subsequent negligence claims or associated expenses. The Court of Appeal’s decision underscores a critical judicial interpretation: limited grants are solely intended for resolving a specific legal dispute, and their termination coincides with the resolution of that dispute.

Conclusion

The nature of limited administration grants offers a focused and legally safeguarded approach to managing specific litigation against a deceased estate. By confining the administrator’s role, the judicial system ensures that estate representation remains purpose-driven and fully aligned with the established legal proceedings. This approach not only protects creditors’ rights but also delineates clear boundaries for the appointed administrator, serving as a critical reminder of the legal rigor embedded in estate management.

AI Adoption Makes Employee Performance Harder To Assess, Survey Finds

Companies have rapidly adopted AI tools to improve productivity, but the technology is creating new challenges for managers, who say it is becoming harder to evaluate work, supervise teams and maintain control.

More than half of senior leaders surveyed said assessing employee performance had become more difficult since their organisations adopted AI, according to a Nielsen survey of 1,700 directors and senior managers across seven countries, commissioned by work-management software company Monday.com.

AI Makes Performance Harder To Measure

AI allows employees to produce polished work more quickly, making it harder for managers to distinguish between human effort and machine-generated output. Nearly half of respondents said they now spend more time reviewing and guiding their teams’ work.

Despite these challenges, enthusiasm remains high: 94% said they were excited about using AI to improve work.

Michal Miller Levi, head of market research and customer insights at Monday.com, said organisations were struggling to adapt their processes at the same pace as the technology.

“AI works very well for [managers] individually, but they also have a different role as managers. They need to drive the organization as well […] Their struggle is [due to] the fact that AI is just moving faster than the organizational processes,” she told TechCrunch.

Performance Reviews And AI Bias

AI is also changing how employee performance is evaluated. According to the survey, 78% of respondents had changed their performance criteria since adopting AI, placing greater emphasis on prompt-writing, deciding which tasks to delegate to AI and experimenting with new working methods.

At the same time, AI is increasingly involved in the evaluation process itself. Some 46% of managers said they use AI to inform decisions, while 39% use it to draft performance reviews.

This raises concerns about fairness and algorithmic bias. Research from the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research found that, without clear objective standards, large language models tend to rate performance in ways that mirror human evaluators. A separate paper published in early 2025 found that AI models could exhibit biases against Black male candidates, with differences across social groups.

Levi said companies had yet to establish the right frameworks for managing these risks.

AI Adds To Managers’ Workloads

Managers are increasingly responsible for assigning tasks to AI agents, reviewing their output and intervening when systems make mistakes. This creates an additional layer of oversight, or “invisible labour”, on top of their existing responsibilities.

The software environment is also becoming more complex. Some 57% of managers said their organisations now use more tools than before AI adoption, while 51% reported greater interdependence between those tools. Only 29% described their AI infrastructure as fully optimised and centralised.

Rather than consolidating software, many companies are dealing with more applications, integrations and unauthorised AI tools used outside approved systems.

Governance Becomes The Next AI Challenge

The survey suggests that oversight will become even more important as businesses deploy increasingly autonomous AI agents. Some 58% of managers expect to oversee more AI agents than human employees within the next year, while 46% are concerned about losing control over their agents’ actions. Another 35% worry about being held responsible for decisions made by AI.

Levi said managers wanted human involvement in critical tasks and decisions, with AI supporting rather than replacing human judgement.

The findings point to a broader challenge for businesses: boosting productivity is only part of successful AI adoption. Companies also need clear processes, reliable infrastructure and accountability frameworks to ensure that faster output does not come at the expense of effective management.

Uol
Aretilaw firm
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
eCredo

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter