When Trust Is Broken: Removing an Executor
‘If satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trust being properly executed, the trustee might be removed.” - Lord Blackburn
The administration of an estate depends heavily on the conduct of the executor/s. The executors are chosen by the deceased and trusted with collecting assets, settling liabilities, and distributing the estate in accordance with the deceased’s wishes. The majority of executors carry out that role properly. However, disputes can arise when beneficiaries believe an executor is acting poorly, causing delay, or even placing the estate at risk.
When can an executor be removed?
In some cases, the court has the power to remove and replace an executor under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. Applications can be brought by beneficiaries, or by existing co-executors or personal representatives themselves.
Importantly, the Court will not remove an executor simply because there is a break down in relations or dissatisfaction with the speed of administration. The guiding principle is whether the estate is being properly administered and whether the welfare of the beneficiaries is being prejudiced. The question is whether the estate can realistically be administered properly while that individual remains in office.
The legal test
The lead case remains Letterstedt v Broers [1884], a landmark case concerning the removal of trustees which has since been applied to executors who may find themselves in a similar situation. In that case, the court established the now well-known test that an executor may be removed where continuing in their role would prevent the estate from being properly administered. The court emphasised that the role of executor exists for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
In practice, the court will consider the facts of each individual case carefully. Common grounds for removal include:
- significant delays in administration;
- a consistent failure to communicate with beneficiaries;
- conflicts of interest / misuse of the estate assets;
- hostility between executors preventing progress;
or any conduct creating a real risk to the proper administration of the estate.
Recent authorities have reinforced that the court adopts both a practical and a beneficiary-focused approach.
A serious remedy, not a first resort
Removal is regarded as a serious step. The court is reluctant to interfere with the deceased’s choice of executor unless there is clear evidence that administration of the estate has broken down or is likely to do so.
Applications under section 50 are often legally, and emotionally, complex. They can also be costly if not approached proportionately.
Early legal advice is therefore essential, both for beneficiaries concerned about the conduct of an executor, and for executors facing criticism regarding the administration of an estate.
If you are concerned about the conduct of an executor or are facing allegations in relation to your own role, it is vital to act swiftly and decisively. Expert legal advice can help protect your position, safeguard the estate, and bring clarity to what is often a highly sensitive situation. Contact a member of our specialist team today for a confidential discussion and clear, strategic guidance on your next steps.
