CI v NS (Revised 1)

A beneficiary seeking information about the administration of an estate may properly invoke the court’s power to require a personal representative to exhibit an inventory and account. Such an application does not necessarily constitute an administration action requiring proceedings in the Chancery Division. Delay is relevant to the court’s discretion, but does not of itself extinguish the personal representative’s duty. Where a respondent has not had a proper opportunity to advance his case, permission to appeal out of time may be granted, even where delay in making the application has not been fully explained.

The claimant, a beneficiary under her late father’s will, applied under section 25 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and rule 61 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 for an order requiring the respondent, the executor, to provide an inventory and account of the estate. The District Probate Registry made the order in the respondent’s absence and summarily assessed costs.

The respondent sought to challenge the order, arguing that the application had been brought in the wrong court and under the wrong procedure. He also sought permission to appeal out of time, contending that he had not been heard and wished to address the estate account and the costs order.

1. The application was properly issued in the Brighton District Registry, which had jurisdiction to deal with the non-contentious probate matter. The claimant was seeking information to which she was entitled under statute, rather than commencing an administration action requiring a Part 8 claim in the Chancery Division.
2. A personal representative has a duty, when required by the court, to exhibit a full inventory of the estate and render an account of its administration. The fact that the request was made after a substantial delay was relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion, but did not remove the underlying duty.
3. The order requiring the respondent to provide the inventory and account was therefore within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and was properly made.
4. Permission to appeal out of time was granted. The respondent had been aware of the order from 5 November 2003 and had delayed until 22 December 2003 before issuing his application. The later part of that delay was unexplained, but he had not yet had an opportunity to advance his case, and the attendance note did not clearly establish that his absence from the original hearing had been fully explained.

The judgment records an order made by the Registrar of the District Probate Registry on 18 September 2003. The respondent’s applications for a rehearing were refused, and the matter came before the High Court on an application seeking permission to appeal out of time.