When executors get it wrong 

Being named as an executor  in a Will is often seen as an honour and a sign of trust. However, it also comes with serious legal responsibilities. Executors are responsible for administering the estate properly, acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries and avoiding situations where their own interests might conflict with their duties. 

A recent High Court case, Dorothy House & Anor v Helme & Anor [2026] EWHC 75 (Ch), provides a useful reminder of what can happen when those responsibilities are not handled carefully and the consequences which can arise in such circumstances. 

The background to the dispute 

The case concerned the estate of Mary Organ, who died in 2017 leaving an estate valued at more than £3.6 million. Her Will made a number of specific gifts and left the remainder of the estate to two charities, Dorothy House and Julia’s House. 

Two individuals had been appointed as executors. Over time, however, the charities became concerned about how the estate was being administered. Several years had passed with little progress and questions began to arise about delays and how certain assets were being managed. 

Eventually, the charities asked the High Court to intervene and replace the executors with an independent professional administrator. 

Problems with the administration of the estate 

The court examined a number of concerns about the way the estate had been handled. These included long delays in progressing the administration, failures to keep beneficiaries properly informed and decisions involving estate assets which raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest. 

One of the most important duties of an executor is to act in the best interests of the estate and the beneficiaries. Executors are placed in a position of trust and are expected to make decisions objectively and transparently. 

This means they must be particularly careful to avoid situations where their personal interests might overlap with estate matters. Even where an executor believes they are acting reasonably, problems can arise if their own interests become connected to decisions about estate assets. For example, this might happen where an executor becomes involved in a transaction relating to estate property or where decisions could potentially benefit them or someone close to them. 

In this case, the court concluded that the executors had not handled these issues appropriately and that their conduct had undermined confidence in the way the estate was being administered. By the time the case reached a hearing, the executors accepted that they should be removed from their role. The dispute therefore centred around costs and whether, having conceded to being removed as Executors, the Defendants should be indemnified by the Estate for their legal costs. 

The court’s decision 

The High Court ordered that the executors be removed and replaced with a professional trust corporation which would take over the administration of the estate. 

The court also had to decide who should pay the legal costs of the dispute. This was an important issue. In many disputes involving estates, legal costs of the Executors on behalf of the Estate in dealing with a dispute are paid from the estate itself. However, this protection is not automatic. The law only allows executors to recover costs that have been properly incurred while they are acting appropriately in the administration of the estate. This principle is reflected in the statutory framework governing trustees and executors, the Civil Procedure Rules relating to costs, and the approach taken by the courts in cases such as Price v Saundry. 

However, the court took a different view in this case. The judge concluded that the executors’ conduct had gone beyond simple mistakes or misunderstandings. Their behaviour was described as seriously unreasonable, and the court found that their actions had played a significant role in causing the dispute to reach court. The Court held that the litigation was hostile from the outset and that the Defendant Executors entered and conducted the proceedings on their own behalf, rather than on behalf of the Estate.  

As a result, the usual approach did not apply. Instead of the Executors being indemnified for their legal costs by the estate, the executors were ordered to pay their own legal costs and those of the Claimant charities themselves. The Court stated that, even if the costs had been incurred on behalf of the Estate (rather than their own agendas personally), the Defendants’ misconduct in administration including lengthy delays, self-dealing and conflict issues, meant the costs were not ‘properly incurred’ and indemnity would be withheld for that reason alone 

In practical terms, this meant the executors faced substantial personal financial consequences as a result of the way they had carried out their role. Due to their behaviour, not only did the Executors have to pay their own legal costs but they were ordered to pay the charities’ legal costs on the indemnity basis which usually leads to a higher costs recovery. 

What this means for executors 

Cases like this highlight how important the role of executor really is and how crucial it is to act properly and appropriately and only incur costs which are reasonable to be properly incurred for the benefit of the Estate. 

Executors must administer an estate carefully and transparently. They must act in the interests of the beneficiaries, are accountable to those beneficiaries and the Court, and avoid situations where their own personal interests might influence their decisions. 

The case also shows how delays can lead to disputes. Administering an estate can take time, particularly where property or valuable assets are involved. However, long periods with little progress or communication can understandably cause concern among beneficiaries and lead to Court intervention. 

A reminder of the responsibilities involved 

Many people agree to act as executors for friends or relatives without fully realising the scale of the responsibility involved. It is often seen as a largely administrative role, but in reality executors occupy a position of trust and are expected to exercise careful judgment when dealing with estate assets and beneficiaries, with potentially serious consequences for not doing so. 

This case illustrates how problems can arise when the administration of an estate becomes prolonged, unclear or entangled with personal interests. Even where individuals believe they are acting reasonably, a lack of transparency or delay can quickly undermine confidence among beneficiaries and lead to disputes. 

The High Court’s decision serves as a reminder that executors are accountable for the way they carry out their duties. Where an estate is not administered properly, the court has the power to intervene, including removing executors and, in serious cases, requiring them to bear the financial consequences of the dispute. 

For anyone asked to act as an executor, the lesson is not that the role should be avoided, but that it should be approached carefully and with the right support where necessary.