Usually, the answer to this question will be ‘no’. The circumstances under which an executor can be removed from their position are limited and it’s vital that an unhappy beneficiary should obtain specialist advice before making an application to court.

An executor is chosen and appointed by a person making a Will, the ‘testator’. They are the person who has to apply for a Grant of Probate and then must:

• gather in the assets of the estate (ie to close bank accounts, sell property etc),
• settle any debts (including the funeral bill) and then,
• distribute what’s left of the estate to the beneficiaries named in the Will.

For completeness it should be noted that an executor is appointed in a Will, whereas if the deceased died without making a will, then an ‘administrator’ takes on a similar role and must apply for a Grant of Letters of Administration.

It’s often the case that beneficiaries will complain that an executor (or administrator) is slow, or hostile or even dishonest. What action can they take?

Removal of an executor may not be the best answer – the cost of an alternative (usually a professional person) may be prohibitive and it could be that taking less serious action, eg an application to court for directions under Part 64 of the Civil Procedure Rules, can resolve the issue.

The court does, however, have the power to substitute or remove an executor from office in a serious case, under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985.  The facts of each case will be different and it is difficult to predict whether or not an application to remove will be successful.  Caselaw can help to indicate whether or not to apply to remove an executor; in the 2019 case of Long v Rodman the court did remove the administrator of the estate. The judge in that case said at paragraph 68:

“It is not the role of the court on hearing an application under section 50 necessarily to make findings of wrongdoing. It is clear however, that where the beneficiaries are able to make out complaints that warrant further investigation, the continued tenure of the administrator becomes untenable unless the complaints are trivial. It seems to me that the issues in the letter from Macfarlanes meet that threshold requirement. They are certainly not trivial complaints and they place Mr Long in a position in which he has conflicts of interest that make it inappropriate for him to remain in office.”

In that case, a professional executor was appointed – not the two sisters who had made the application to the court in relation to their late father’s estate.

Another 2019 case, Schumacher v Clarke concerns the estate of the late Dame Zaha Hadid, a well known architect. The judge made it clear that although feelings may run high, the purpose of a hearing is not to allow the parties to “vent their complaints about each other” but rather to decide the core issue i.e. whether or not the “continuation in office of one or more of the parties is detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries”. This decision was referred to and followed in the 2021 case of Hudman v Morris where the executor was removed for his irrational and hostile conduct; he had put his own personal views and interests above those of the estate.

The court will take a pragmatic approach. If there has been obvious and significant wrongdoing, removal is likely but otherwise the key issue is whether or not removal is required for the welfare of the beneficiaries of the estate.

Sarah Young – Director & Solicitor