Ali v Taj (Probate - Inventory and Account)

Non-contentious probate business does not become contentious merely because the parties disagree about the administration of an estate. A beneficiary’s right to seek an inventory and account under Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 25, remains within the Family Division’s jurisdiction where there is no dispute about the executor’s right to probate and administer the estate.

The court will ordinarily order an inventory and account. Practical difficulties, uncertainty about assets, an HMRC investigation, proposed removal of the executor, or possible proceedings in the Chancery Division do not ordinarily justify refusal. An account may identify information as provisional or uncertain, and the executor may seek time or take steps to obtain missing information.

The applicant executor appealed against an order made by District Registrar Murphy on 7 August 2019 requiring him and a co-executor to exhibit on oath a true and perfect inventory of the deceased’s estate and render a true and just account of its administration.

The estate had remained unaccounted for many years. The beneficiaries alleged delay, inadequate disclosure and maladministration. The applicant argued that the dispute was contentious, that the application had been procedurally defective, that practical uncertainties made compliance impossible, and that related proceedings in the Chancery Division created a risk of inconsistent decisions.

The central issues were whether the Family Division had jurisdiction, whether the procedural defects required the order to be set aside, and whether an inventory and account should be ordered despite the asserted uncertainties.

1. Appeal. The appeal was dismissed, save that the challenge to the costs order was reserved for written submissions. The court ordered the applicant and co-executor to provide a true and perfect inventory and a true and just account by 4 pm on 23 March 2020.
2. Jurisdiction. Under s 128 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the relevant question was whether there was contention about the executors’ right to obtain probate and administer the estate. Disputes about the practicality of accounting, an HMRC investigation and allegations concerning administration did not convert the matter into contentious probate business. The Family Division therefore had jurisdiction to act under s 25 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.
3. Procedural defects. The summons had not been sealed, issued or served, and the applicant had not been given notice of the paper determination. Those defects were procedurally unsatisfactory. However, the appeal was a rehearing. The applicant had received notice of the appeal, legal representation and a full opportunity to make submissions. The rehearing therefore cured the practical unfairness affecting the first-instance process.
4. Discretion. The discretion under s 25 was narrow and ordinarily favoured ordering an inventory and account. Practical or logistical difficulties were not sufficient reason to refuse relief. The inventory could identify disputed or uncertain assets, and the account could identify information as provisional or uncertain. The executor remained responsible for taking reasonable steps to obtain information within the control of former solicitors or others.
5. Later proceedings. Proposed removal proceedings, possible directions in the Chancery Division and a challenge to the will did not absolve the executor from accounting. An executor remains liable to account even after removal or expiry of the administration.

High Court (Family Division). The court reheard the appeal from the District Registrar’s order and dismissed it, except as to the costs ground, which was reserved.