We support businesses with commercially focused legal solutions that drive growth and protect and preserve your assets and reputations.
Whatever your business, we can help you prosper.
We provide legal support to address the major challenges in life and protect your family and finances.
From relationship breakdowns or personal injuries to property or criminal defence, we can help you achieve the best outcome for you and your family.
When people make a Will, they understandably focus on who should inherit their estate. Often, much less thought is given to who should administer it.
That can be a costly mistake.
The choice of executor is one of the most important decisions made when preparing a Will. An unsuitable appointment can lead to delay, increased costs, family conflict and, in some cases, court proceedings seeking the executor’s removal or replacement.
Recent decisions of the courts have highlighted the difficulties that can arise where executors have personal interests which conflict with their duties, relationships between beneficiaries break down or confidence in the administration of an estate is lost. They also provide important lessons for anyone making a Will and deciding who should be entrusted with carrying out their final wishes. The Court will not interfere lightly with a testator’s choice of executor, but that choice is not immune from scrutiny where the proper administration of the estate is at risk.
An executor is responsible for administering the estate of the deceased.
That role commonly includes collecting assets, obtaining the Grant of Probate, dealing with tax and liabilities, selling property where necessary, keeping estate accounts and distributing the estate to the beneficiaries.
Executors occupy a fiduciary position and must act in the best interests of the estate. Their duties are owed to the beneficiaries collectively and not to any individual beneficiary, including themselves. They must collect in and administer the estate according to law and, where required, account for the administration of the estate.
In many estates, administration proceeds smoothly. However, difficulties can arise where the executor is also a beneficiary, has a personal interest in estate assets or has a poor relationship with other beneficiaries.
One issue that is frequently overlooked when making a Will is the age of the proposed executor.
Many people appoint friends, siblings or relatives of a similar age without considering whether those individuals will still be capable of carrying out the role years or decades later.
Similarly, appointing an adult child may seem sensible when the Will is signed. However, family circumstances can change significantly over time. Relationships can deteriorate, beneficiaries may become estranged and new disputes may emerge which nobody anticipated when the Will was prepared.
When choosing executors, it is important to think not only about who is trusted today but who is likely to be suitable, willing and capable of acting when the time eventually comes.
One of the most common situations that gives rise to disputes is where parents appoint one child as sole executor but leave their estate equally between all of their children.
The decision is often made for entirely understandable reasons. One child may live nearby, assist with finances, help with practical matters or simply be regarded as the most organised member of the family.
However, circumstances often look very different after death.
A scenario frequently encountered in practice is where one child lives in a property owned by the deceased but the estate is intended to be divided equally between all of the beneficiaries. The property needs to be sold in order to distribute the estate, but the executor who occupies the property may have little enthusiasm for a speedy sale.
The same issue can arise in relation to farms, businesses, development land and commercial properties.
This does not necessarily mean the executor has done anything wrong. However, alarm bells should begin to ring because the executor’s personal interests and their obligations to the estate may no longer be aligned. These situations often become fertile ground for allegations of delay, conflicts of interest and unfairness. A conflict of interest will not automatically justify removal, particularly if the testator knowingly created or authorised that potential conflict, but it is a factor the court can take into account when considering whether the estate can be properly administered.
These issues were considered by the High Court in Fernandez v Fernandez & Anor [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch).
The case arose from a long-running family dispute concerning the administration of the estates of Julian Fernandez’s parents and a family trust created during their lifetimes. Julian had obtained probate of his parents’ 1996 wills after earlier letters of administration had been granted on the basis that one estate was thought to be intestate. His siblings later pursued a counterclaim seeking his removal as executor and trustee, and the appointment of an independent professional.
The appeal before HHJ Paul Matthews concerned whether the order removing Julian should stand. The dispute had been running for many years and involved allegations of conflicts of interest, delay, lack of transparency, breakdown in relations and difficulties progressing the administration to a conclusion.
Julian argued that much of the administration had already been completed and resisted removal. Nevertheless, the court upheld the decision to remove him from office and replace him with an independent professional.
The decision is important because HHJ Paul Matthews confirmed that an executor does not need to be dishonest or guilty of misconduct before removal can be justified. This reflects a well-established line of authority. In Harris v Earwicker [2015] EWHC 1915 (Ch), Chief Master Marsh had already made clear that the guiding principle is whether the estate is being properly administered, not whether wrongdoing can be proven, and that approach was later confirmed in both Long v Rodman [2019] EWHC 753 (Ch) and Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031 (Ch). The statutory power to remove or replace a personal representative after a grant is found in section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985.
Instead, the court’s concern is whether the estate can be administered properly and whether the executor’s continued involvement is compatible with the welfare of the beneficiaries and the efficient administration of the estate. The court was entitled to take into account conflicts of interest, personal hostility and the fact that relationships had deteriorated to such an extent that the administration had become increasingly difficult. The question is practical and forward-looking, not simply punitive.
The consequences for Julian did not end with his removal. In the consequential costs judgment, the court addressed the costs consequences of the failed appeal and Julian’s claimed indemnity from the estates and trust fund. This is a reminder that an executor who continues to resist removal in circumstances where their position has become untenable may find their right to an indemnity curtailed along with their appointment.
Many people assume that an executor can only be removed if they have been dishonest, committed a breach of trust or otherwise behaved improperly.
That is not the law.
Whilst misconduct will often justify removal, the court’s jurisdiction is much wider than that. The primary question is whether the executor’s continued appointment is likely to impede the proper administration of the estate or undermine the interests of the beneficiaries. The court may also consider the wishes of the testator, the views of the beneficiaries, what work remains to be done, whether the breakdown in relations makes administration difficult or impossible, and the additional cost of appointing a replacement, particularly a professional replacement.
Significant conflicts of interest, irretrievable personal hostility, lack of confidence and prolonged disputes may all justify intervention, even where no formal finding of misconduct has been made. However, hostility or disagreement alone will not usually be enough unless it has a real impact on the administration of the estate. This can often come as a surprise to executors who believe beneficiaries must first prove wrongdoing before any application can succeed.
A different outcome was reached in Woolls v Byrtt [2026] EWHC 1141 (Ch).
The dispute arose between siblings following the death of their father, John Woolls, in July 2023. The deceased had appointed his daughter, Lisa Byrtt, as sole executor under a professionally prepared Will. The estate included three properties in Weston-super-Mare and the residue was to be divided equally between the two children under the 2023 will.
The claimant argued that the executor should be removed because of alleged conflicts of interest, concerns regarding property-related issues and a breakdown in the relationship between the parties. The allegations included issues concerning the validity of the 2023 will, financial dealings, alleged occupation of commercial premises and the administration of estate property.
Unlike Fernandez, however, the court declined to remove the executor.
One of the significant factors was that the deceased had consciously chosen Lisa Byrtt to perform that role. The court emphasised that the deceased’s decision should be respected so far as circumstances allow unless there is a sufficiently compelling reason to interfere. The court also considered proportionality, the cost of appointing an independent professional, and whether the alleged issues required removal rather than more targeted directions or other proceedings.
The decision demonstrates that not every disagreement, conflict or strained family relationship will justify removal. Each case turns on its own facts and the court will carefully consider whether intervention is genuinely required. It is therefore risky for beneficiaries to assume that a removal application will succeed simply because relations have broken down or allegations have been made.
One practical lesson emerging from cases such as Woolls is the importance of documenting why a particular executor has been chosen.
Many Wills simply appoint an executor without any explanation. Years later, if beneficiaries challenge that appointment, it can be difficult to understand the deceased’s thinking. A carefully prepared attendance note or letter of wishes can provide valuable evidence.
For example, a parent may wish to explain that one child has particular financial experience, has helped manage their affairs for many years or has specific skills which make them well suited to the role. Equally, where a solicitor or other professional is appointed, the reasons may include concerns about family conflict, a desire for independence or the complexity of the estate. Where a potential conflict is foreseeable, recording that the testator understood it and nevertheless considered the appointment appropriate may also assist, although it will not be conclusive.
Whilst such explanations are not binding, they may prove highly persuasive if the appointment later comes under scrutiny.
Many people instinctively appoint family members as executors and, in many cases, that works perfectly well.
However, there are circumstances where appointing a professional executor deserves serious consideration. This is particularly true where the family involves blended families or second marriages, where the estate includes business or agricultural assets or significant wealth, where complex trusts are in place, where gifts between children are unequal, where family tensions already exist, where a beneficiary occupies estate property, or simply where there is a real concern that disputes may arise after death.
A professional executor offers independence, expertise and neutrality. Unlike a family member, they have no personal interest in the outcome, so decisions can be made objectively and transparently, reducing the risk of future disputes. That said, a professional appointment should still be proportionate to the size and complexity of the estate.
Although some people are concerned about cost, professional executor fees are often modest when compared to the substantial costs that can arise if probate litigation develops between family members.
The recent executor removal cases highlight a number of important practical points.
Choosing an executor should never be an afterthought. Careful consideration should be given to age, health, family dynamics, practical ability and the possibility of future conflicts of interest.
Where multiple children will inherit, appointing only one as executor should be considered carefully. In some families, appointing joint executors may be appropriate. In others, an independent professional appointment may be the safer choice. There is no one-size-fits-all answer: the right appointment depends on the family, the assets, the likely administration issues and the risk of conflict.
Recording the reasons behind the appointment may also help avoid future disputes and provide valuable evidence if questions are later raised.
Ultimately, a little planning now can avoid significant cost, delay and family conflict later.
At Coodes Solicitors, our experienced Private Client team assists individuals and families with all aspects of Will preparation and estate planning, including advising on suitable executor appointments.
Our specialist Inheritance and Trust Disputes team also acts for executors, beneficiaries and trustees in relation to probate disputes, executor removal applications, trust disputes, contested Wills and claims concerning the administration of estates.
If you are considering making or updating a Will, obtaining specialist advice can help ensure that the right executors are appointed and that appropriate safeguards are put in place to minimise the risk of future disputes.
Similarly, if you are concerned about the conduct of an executor, believe conflicts of interest are affecting the administration of an estate or have questions regarding your rights as a beneficiary, specialist legal advice should be sought at an early stage. That advice should include whether a removal application is appropriate or whether a more proportionate route, such as correspondence, mediation, directions or account enquiries, is likely to achieve the desired outcome.
Every case is different and early advice can often make a significant difference to both the outcome and the costs involved.
If you are considering making or updating a Will and would like advice regarding executor appointments, or if you are involved in a dispute concerning the administration of an estate, contact Coodes Solicitors for specialist advice. Our experienced team can help you understand your options, protect your position and work towards a practical resolution.
About the Author: Hayley Gaffney is a Partner in the Inheritance and Trust Disputes team at Coodes Solicitors. She specialises in contentious probate, contested Wills, executor and trustee disputes, Inheritance Act claims, proprietary estoppel claims and all aspects of inheritance and trust litigation.
Get in touch: hayley.gaffney@coodes.co.uk or 01872 246 200
Partner
Call us on 0800 328 3282, or complete the form below and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
As of 6th April 2024, paternity leave will be changing to reflect a shifting attitude…
What steps should you take if you suspect someone is committing financial abuse as a…
