Disputes over estate administration can escalate quickly, particularly when beneficiaries believe an executor is no longer acting in the estate’s best interests. English law provides a mechanism to deal with these situations, allowing the court to remove or replace an executor where continuing in the role would hinder proper administration.
Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 gives the court broad discretion to intervene. The focus is not on punishing an executor, but on ensuring the estate can be administered efficiently, fairly and without unnecessary conflict.
When executor conduct becomes a legal issue
Executors are under a duty to act impartially, to progress the administration without undue delay and to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed. Problems arise when that duty breaks down in practice. Common warning signs include prolonged delays, poor communication, refusal to share information, or decisions that appear to favour one interest over another.
In some cases, an executor may have a personal interest that conflicts with their role, such as where their own entitlement under the will is being challenged. In others, hostility between executors or between an executor and beneficiaries can make progress impossible. The law recognises that even well-intentioned individuals may become unsuitable if relationships deteriorate to the point that administration stalls.
The court’s test under Section 50
Section 50 allows the High Court to remove or substitute an executor at any stage of the administration. Importantly, applicants do not need to prove dishonesty or bad faith. The central question is whether it is in the best interests of the estate and the beneficiaries for that executor to remain in place.
Courts take a practical approach. They consider whether the executor is likely to administer the estate properly going forward, rather than focusing solely on past behaviour. Factors that often support removal include a complete breakdown of trust between executors, persistent inactivity, entrenched hostility with beneficiaries, or clear conflicts of interest that cannot be managed.
Steps to consider before going to court
Court proceedings are rarely the first or preferred step. In many cases, concerns should be set out clearly in writing, giving the executor an opportunity to respond or correct course. Solicitors often recommend attempting negotiation or mediation, particularly where family relationships are involved.
If informal efforts fail, a more formal warning may be sent in line with the Civil Procedure Rules. This can clarify the seriousness of the situation and, in some cases, prompt progress without litigation. Courts generally expect parties to have explored proportionate alternatives before issuing an application.
Evidence and procedure
Applications under Section 50 are evidence-based. The court will expect clear material demonstrating why removal is necessary. This may include correspondence showing repeated failures to act, witness statements from co-executors or beneficiaries, or documentation indicating mismanagement of assets.
Timing can be significant. Raising concerns before a grant of probate is issued can offer additional procedural options, such as entering a caveat to prevent the grant being made to the executor in question. Once a grant is issued, removal remains possible, but the threshold for intervention may feel higher in practical terms because administration is already under way.
Costs and financial exposure
Executor removal applications can be costly, but the court has flexibility when dealing with costs. Where an application is brought reasonably to protect the estate, costs are often paid out of the estate itself. Conversely, if a challenge is ill-founded or driven by personal animosity, the court may order the applicant to pay costs personally.
Executors who face contentious decisions may also seek Beddoe relief, which allows them to ask the court in advance whether proposed litigation steps are appropriate, protecting them from personal liability if they act in accordance with the court’s guidance.
Why early intervention matters
Section 50 is sometimes viewed as a last resort, but in practice it is a safeguard designed to prevent long-running deadlock and escalating expense. Early, strategic action can limit damage to the estate, preserve value for beneficiaries and reduce the emotional toll on families.
Executor disputes frequently sit at the intersection of contentious and non-contentious probate work. Addressing problems promptly, with a clear understanding of the court’s powers, can make the difference between a stalled administration and a resolution that allows the estate to move forward.
What this means
For beneficiaries, Section 50 offers reassurance that the court can step in if an executor’s continued involvement is blocking progress. For executors, it underlines the importance of transparency, communication and impartiality throughout the administration process. For advisers, it highlights the value of early advice and proportionate steps before disputes become entrenched.
When and where
This overview is informed by commentary published by Today’s Wills and Probate on the operation of Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and its use in executor disputes.
