Barny Croft and Louise Corfield consider Pegler v McDonald, the case that has something for everyone The court deemed that its findings added up to a ‘comprehensive disqualification for [the defendant’s] being concerned in the fiduciary administration of assets for the benefit of other people’. If you have not read the case of Pegler v …
Continue reading "Will disputes: The recalcitrant executor"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2022 #189The claimant was the daughter of the deceased. The defendant was said to have been in a relationship with the deceased. The deceased appointed the defendant along with two others as executors of his will. He also devised a freehold commercial property and £75,000 to the defendant. The residue of the estate was to be divided equally between the claimant and her two siblings. The claimant disputed the validity of the will.
On 6 May 2021, after a chain of correspondence, the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors on an open basis setting out various detailed points...
Claims for the removal of executors or administrators are commonplace and mishandling them can result in a hefty bill for the defendant. James McKean reports The PR(s) in both cases were heavily criticised for filing extensive evidence before conceding – or even while conceding – the claim. In the recent cases of Fellner v Cleall [2021] and Fullard …
Continue reading "Personal representatives: Out of office and out of pocket"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186By his will dated 17 January 2011 (the will), Arthur Brookman (the deceased) appointed his wife, Sandra Brookman, together with her children and brother to be the executors and trustees. The deceased placed his beneficial half share in the matrimonial home at 49 Hemsby Road, Castleford (the property) in a discretionary trust for the benefit of a class of potential beneficiaries that included his wife, his children by a former marriage, his stepchildren and six named grandchildren. Subject to the power of appointment, the capital and income were held on trust for such of his children and ...
Recent case law has clarified when the court considers an executor can be removed due to the breakdown of the relationship with the beneficiaries. Laura Abbott explains Executors have a duty to administer the estate in accordance with law and in a timely manner, and to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, not …
Continue reading "Executors: More than friction"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2021 #184The claimant was the executrix and one of five residuary beneficiaries of the estate of her late father. The defendant, her brother, was the co-executor and a fellow residuary beneficiary. The claimant brought a Part 8 claim under s50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to remove the defendant as executor and, alternatively, sought an order that the defendant be passed over pursuant to s116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The claimant also sought the appointment of an independent administrator and was voluntarily willing to step down as executrix ...
John Brennan discusses the implications of the fiduciary conflict rule on trustees The existence of friction or hostility between the trustees is not always sufficient to justify the removal of a trustee but is often relevant, especially if it arises from the way in which the trust has been administered. In Manton v Manton [2021], …
Continue reading "Trustees: When to remove"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178The claimants were the widow and the daughter of the deceased who died on 8 March 2015. The deceased executed an English will (“the Will”) dealing with his UK assets and appointing a Swiss lawyer (the 1st defendant) as his executor and trustee. The widow (the 1st claimant) was the sole beneficiary of the English estate. There was a breakdown of relations between the 1st claimant and the 1st defendant. The daughter (the 2nd claimant) supported the widow. The claimants applied for an order under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 removing the 1st defenda...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2019 #175The claim related to the estate of Mr Bhusate who died on 28 April 1990. His first wife (Mrs Bhusate) had died in 1971. The 1st to 5th defendants were Mr Bhusate’s children by his marriage to Mrs Bhusate. The claimant was his third wife. The 6th defendant was the only child of Mr Bhusate and the claimant.
Mr Bhusate died intestate. Letters of administration were granted to the claimant and the 1st defendant on 12 August 1991. The estate principally comprised a property in London where the claimant and Mr Bhusate lived (the property). The property remained registered in Mr Bhusate’...
Jonathan Grogan looks at the pros and cons of removing personal representatives ‘Even if there was no will, the court may be inclined to favour the status quo and so avoid any instability and additional cost caused by removing those who have already obtained a grant of probate from office.’Applications to remove personal representatives (PRs) …
Continue reading "Estate Administration: A bit of a gamble?"
This post is only available to members.
