Vivien Hanson v Jeremy Coleman & Anor

Under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, the central question is whether replacement of personal representatives is in the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole. Proof of wrongdoing is unnecessary. Relevant considerations include the proper administration of the estate, material delay or fault, the testator’s wishes, the beneficiaries’ views, whether relations have broken down so that administration has become difficult, and the cost and practicality of replacement. A breakdown in relations alone is insufficient. It may justify removal when coupled with conflict of interest, delay, mistrust, unresolved administration, or the likelihood of further contentious applications. The court must make a balanced judgment and may appoint an independent administrator where that is the course best serving the estate and beneficiaries.

The claimant sought the removal of her two brothers as executors of their late father’s estate under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. The estate included interests in two properties. The defendants asserted that the properties were beneficially owned in different proportions from those declared in the inheritance tax return, while also acting as executors.

The dispute led to a conflict of interest, prolonged delay, disagreement about the administration and a breakdown in relations. The claimant also raised concerns about the proposed purchase of estate property by one defendant, occupation rent, estate expenses and the adequacy of the accounts. The central issue was whether the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole required replacement of the executors by an independent administrator.

1. Order. The defendants were removed as executors and an independent administrator was appointed.
2. The applicable question under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 is whether replacement is in the best interests of the beneficiaries considered as a whole. The jurisdiction does not depend on adverse factual findings or proof of wrongdoing. The claim concerns the estate and its proper administration, rather than being an ordinary claim in personam. Delay may itself be damaging.
3. The court adopted the criteria summarised in Harris v Earwicker [2015] EWHC 1915 (Ch): wrongdoing or fault is unnecessary, although material fault endangering the estate strongly supports removal; the testator’s wishes are relevant; the beneficiaries’ wishes may be relevant but confer no right to replacement; a breakdown in relations matters where it makes administration difficult or impossible; and the cost and scope of replacement must be considered.
4. Applying those principles cumulatively, the defendants had persisted in an improper conflict of interest after asserting personal claims against the estate. The estate had remained substantially unadministered for more than two years, with potential prejudice from delay. One defendant still wished to purchase an estate property, potentially requiring a contested application under Part 64 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The relationship had broken down and the claimant had reasonable mistrust as to future administration.
5. The testator’s choice of executors did not override those factors. Although a breakdown or mistrust alone would not justify removal, they assumed greater significance when combined with conduct and administration concerns. The likely cost of a contested directions application was also considered likely to exceed the cost of an independent administrator, and the estate was sufficiently substantial to bear that cost.