By the order of the Traitors, you have been murdered

Most personal representatives (including both executors and administrators) begin their role like contestants arriving at The Traitors castle: earnest, well‑intentioned, and confident they can navigate the challenges ahead. But as The Traitors reliably shows, even the most sincere players can falter under pressure and the ever‑shifting dynamics of the Roundtable. In the world of estates, personal representatives can start as faithful servants, with the best intentions – yet still drift into problematic territory. Sometimes it’s incompetence, delay, or conflicts of interest. And in the more dramatic episodes – thankfully rare – dishonesty.  

When this happens charities may need to act promptly to remove and replace the personal representatives to protect their interest in an estate.  This often requires a judgment call: has the estate already suffered harm, or is it at real risk of harm, such that the time and cost of removal will deliver a net benefit?

In this presentation, we shall outline the court’s power to 'banish' personal representatives and appoint replacements, and what factors the court will consider – without the dramatic music, but often with just as much drama and tension.  

Three recent cases make the point clearly: the court will step in and remove executors if that is what best serves the estate and its beneficiaries – even where it has found no breach of duty or financial loss.

In short: even in the legal world, you do not have to be a Traitor to be removed – your continued appointment just has to stop serving the estate’s best interests.

The Jurisdiction of the Court

The main legal route for asking the court to remove or replace personal representatives comes from Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 ('AJA 1985').  This section gives the court the power to step in and substitute executors – or bring their appointment to an end – when a grant of representation has already been issued. It says:

'Where an application relating to the estate of a deceased person is made to the High Court under this sub-section by or on behalf of a personal representative of the deceased or a beneficiary of the estate, the Court may in its discretion:

(a) appoint a person … to act as personal representative of the deceased in place of the existing personal representative or representatives of the deceased or any of them; or

(b)  if there are two or more existing personal representatives of the deceased, terminate the appointment of one or more but not all of those persons.'

Because the court has wide discretion under this power, it needs to consider a variety of factors before deciding whether to remove or replace a PR.  These factors are explored in more detail later.

There is also jurisdiction found in Section 116 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 ('SCA 1981') which provides that:

'If by reason of any special circumstances it appears to the High Court to be necessary or expedient to appoint as administrator some person other than the person who, but for this section, would in accordance with probate rules have been entitled to the grant, the Court may in its discretion appoint as administrator such person as it thinks expedient.'

The wording of Section 116 (highlighted) makes it clear that this power is aimed at situations where a grant has not yet been issued.  However, in Goodman v Goodman [2013], the court confirmed that an application under Section 50 may also be brought before a grant is issued.

Under Section 116, the court will only step in where there are 'special circumstances' and where it is 'necessary or expedient' to do so.  Because that threshold is fairly high, most applications – especially contested ones – are instead brought under Section 50, where the court’s discretion is noticeably broader.

It should also be noted that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to remove personal representatives, which is often also referenced in any application for removal. 

Sometimes a Will sets up an ongoing trust rather than giving beneficiaries their interest outright.  In those cases, the personal representatives are often (but not automatically) appointed as the trustees of that trust. Where someone is being removed as a personal representative, it will usually make sense to remove them as a trustee as well – on the basis that if they cannot properly administer the estate, they are unlikely to manage the trust with any more care. 

Section 41 Trustee Act 1925 confers jurisdiction on the court to remove and replace trustees.  It says:

'The court may, whenever it is expedient to appoint a new trustee or new trustees, and it is found inexpedient, difficult or impracticable so to do without the assistance of the court, make an order appointing a new trustee or new trustees either in substitution for or in addition to any existing trustee or trustees, or although there is no existing trustee.'

Relevant factors in removal cases

The classic authority on removal applications remains the Privy Council’s decision in Letterstedt v Broers [1884].  It confirms that the Court’s overriding concern is the welfare of the beneficiaries.

The Privy Council said:

'… friction or hostility between trustees and [beneficiaries] is not of itself a reason for the removal of the trustees.  But where the hostility is grounded on the mode in which the trust has been administered… it is certainly not to be disregarded.'  

Today, the most frequently cited case for the relevant considerations that the Court must consider is Harris v Earwicker [2015], where Chief Master Marsh set out six key factors:

1. Whether the administration is being carried out properly: Chief Master Marsh said it was unnecessary to find fault or wrongdoing.  The 'guiding principle' is whether the administration is being carried out properly or put differently, whether it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries to replace one or more of the personal representatives?
2. If wrongdoing or fault exists, its impact: Wrongdoing must endanger the estate to justify removal.  Minor failings that do not negatively impact the administration are unlikely to meet the threshold.
3. The wishes of the Deceased: The Court will consider whom the testator chose as executor and why.  Those reasons may justify keeping the personal representatives in place.
4. The wishes of the Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries cannot demand removal, but their collective wishes form part of the overall assessment.
5. What is needed to progress the administration: Even without wrongdoing, removal may be appropriate if a breakdown in relationships makes the administration difficult or impossible. The Court looks at what has been completed, what remains, and whether replacement would genuinely improve matters—particularly where administration is nearly complete.
6. Costs: Replacing an executor – especially with a professional – adds expense. The size of the estate and the work remaining are important factors.

As to how the above factors have been applied by the court in previous cases, Chief Master Marsh in Long v Rodman [2019] confirmed that:

'… friction or hostility between trustees and beneficiaries is not of itself a reason for removal. But where that hostility is grounded on the mode in which the trust (or estate) has been administered, it is not to be disregarded…'

'[W]here 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.' 

As to the wishes of the beneficiaries, Chief Master Marsh said that it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that the wishes of beneficiaries will always be a 'very powerful factor', but that:

'the unanimous views of the beneficiaries [are] important where the primary test is their welfare… if all the beneficiaries in an estate want the executor to renounce, it is a very powerful factor…'

In Schumacher v Clarke [2019], Chief Master Marsh (again!) said: 

'The core concern of the court is what is in the best interests of the beneficiaries looking at their interests as a whole.  The power of the court is not dependent on making adverse findings of fact, and it is not necessary for the claimant to prove wrongdoing.  It will often suffice for the court to conclude that a party has made out a good arguable case about the issues that are raised …'

Chief Master Marsh then went on to say:

'[the administration of an estate or a trust can often lead to tension and indeed feelings often run high. It is essential for the court to avoid as far as possible providing a forum for the parties merely to vent their complaints about each other. The core issue is whether the continuation in office of one or more of the parties is detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries'

In Hudman v Morris [2021], Master Clark removed the son of the Deceased as executor and appointed an independent.  Master Clark acknowledged the ‘core concern' of the court (citing Chief Master Marsh in Schumacher v Clarke [2019]).  She concluded that the Defendant's conduct and his 'intense and ill-founded hostility towards his siblings' justified his removal and that even without that, 'the wholesale breakdown of relations' between the Defendant and his siblings justified an independent. 

In Ugolor and others v Ugolor [2021], Judge Knox QC followed the approach taken by Chief Master Marsh in Schumacher v Clarke [2019].  He again emphasised that the 'core concern' of the Court and said that 'if there is a good arguable case for removing a person who claims to act as executor, then the court has a power to do so'.  Here there was a 'live dispute' as to who the beneficiaries should be and so Judge Knox QC confirmed that it was appropriate to appoint a replacement, independent administrator. 

Notable cases in 2025 and 2026

There have been several interesting removal of executor decisions in 2025 and early 2026.

In Osborne v Osborne [2025], two siblings applied to remove their third sibling as executor of their father’s estate. The executors had divided responsibilities: the defendant was tasked with dealing with the deceased’s interest in his accountancy firm (where he was also a partner), a French property, and various investments.  The defendant owned the neighbouring plot in France and had tried to buy the French house from the others.  The claimants argued he should have obtained independent valuations for the house, the firm’s accounts, and the shares.

Mr Justice Leech agreed and removed the defendant, noting: 

'I accept that not every potential or even actual conflict of interest and duty requires the removal of a trustee or executor, especially where the settlor or testator must be taken to have been aware of it when choosing the trustee or executor.  However, the conflict in the present case is far more significant and pervasive than this.  I have found that the estate has a real prospect of succeeding in substantial claims against the Defendant which it would not be disproportionate to pursue and if I do not remove the Defendant, this may prevent the estate from realising those assets of the estate… [61]'

In Seymour v Ragley Trust Company Ltd [2025], Master Brightwell refused the Earl of Yarmouth's application for the removal of two corporate trustees of several land and property settlements connected with his family's estate.  The Earl alleged that the trustees were siding with his parents in a family dispute to the detriment of the beneficiaries.  Master Brightwell said:

'[H]istorical allegations of events of several years ago will tend to be less relevant than evidence of recent events or of continuing conduct. That is because the court is concerned with the safety of the trust assets and the welfare of the beneficiaries in the future'

'[T]he fact that the claimant has a very earnest belief that the trustees have failed in their duties or should have acted differently (in an unspecified way) is no sufficient basis for a finding that they have so failed in their duties'

'[T]he fact that a beneficiary has lost trust and confidence in trustees does not without more lead to the removal of the trustees….' 

The case reinforces the need to gather clear evidence of misconduct and to act promptly, including obtaining legal advice at an early stage.

Another widely discussed case was Fernandez v Fernandez [2025], in which the court dismissed an appeal against an order removing the executor and trustee of his parents’ estates. The first instance judge relied on Harris [2015], Long [2019], and Schumacher [2019], noting that the court does not need to make adverse findings or prove wrongdoing - only that there is a good arguable case for removal.

In the Fernandez appeal, Judge Matthews agreed with that analysis and held that the executor should be replaced.  He said that the administration had already been subject to 'enormous' delays and that the 'obvious' hostility and potential conflicts of interest were hindering the proper administration of the estates.

Judge Matthews also upheld an indemnity costs order against the removed executor.  He accepted that such an order required conduct 'out of the norm', and held that the first instance judge was entitled to find it 'exceptional' for the defendant to resist replacement  and to refuse mediation.  Most executors will resist removal (at least initially).  But the court expects the parties to engage constructively in ADR (including mediation).  

In Dorothy House v Helme [2026] EWHC 75 (Ch), Judge Paul Matthews (again) appointed a professional trust corporation to replace two executors following concerns about delay and conflicts of interest—particularly their concealed interest under the Will and issues surrounding the sale of a farm. Although the defendants eventually agreed to step down, they sought terms including a 'usual indemnity' in relation to claims against them and a release from other possible claims. The claimants rejected these terms, so the disposal hearing proceeded.

In his 19 January 2026 Judgment, Judge Matthews held: 

'For the purposes of assessing whether the defendants should be removed as executors, it is not necessary that I find that there has been any breach of duty, or loss to the estate. I simply ask myself whether it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the estate that the defendants be removed and replaced by a professional trust corporation'

He found:

'In my judgment, the defendants have demonstrated a poor understanding of the need for executors to avoid even the potential for a conflict of interest… they have taken far too long in the administration so far… and they have [only] sought to avoid the consequences of their potential conflicts of interest and delays… at the last minute… In my view, these matters should be dealt with by an independent professional personal representative…'.

Judge Matthews also held that the defendants’ conduct was so unreasonable that they should pay the claimants’ costs on an indemnity basis, without reimbursement from the estate for either those costs or their own.

Process and costs

Applications to remove personal representatives are issued under the streamlined Part 8 procedure in the High Court, rather than the more formal Part 7 process used for most civil claims.  This means the claimant files a claim form and a witness statement instead of detailed pleadings, disclosure, and a full trial with evidence.

Cross examination is unusual in Part 8 claims because the court is not required to determine disputed facts. It only needs to be satisfied that there is a good arguable case or a complaint that is more than trivial.  As a result, hearings typically last no more than a day, so costs are generally lower than in claims brought against executors.  However, even in Part 8 proceedings, the court may occasionally order specific disclosure or direct a trial with live witnesses. These steps inevitably increase the length and cost of the case.

On costs, the usual rule applies: costs follow the event.  In practice, if the court finds an arguable case and removes the personal representatives, they are likely to be ordered to pay the costs.

Personal representatives are therefore in a vulnerable position when facing a removal claim. The threshold for removal is relatively low, especially if the administration has stalled. They may be removed even without wrongdoing, but if they resist removal rather than agree to step down, they risk being penalised in costs.

That said, the court retains a wide discretion. It may allow personal representatives to recover some of their costs from the estate – either for specific issues or up to a particular stage – under their existing right of indemnity.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, when the administration of an estate stalls or the behaviour of the personal representatives raises suspicion, it may be time to gather at the metaphorical Round Table. In many cases, there will be enough evidence to question their role and consider their banishment.  You do not need a dramatic reveal or evidence of treachery or wrongdoing  – only a clear risk to the estate and the beneficiaries.

The real challenge is deciding when the suspicious behaviour, secretive decisions, or unexplained delays justify stepping in.  Just like watching the episodes back, hindsight makes it obvious: the warning signs were there, and earlier action would have protected the 'prize pot'  – the estate – from loss or delay.

If genuine concerns exist and the executors fight to stay in the game, they do so at significant personal risk. Opposing removal can leave them exposed to personal cost liability.  A risk that in real life often outweighs the desire to stay in the game.

Finally, the lead up to any application matters. Early correspondence sets the tone, and the court pays close attention to it.  Communications should be controlled, measured, and strategic.  Much like at the Round Table in The Traitors, overly hostile correspondence can make the accuser look more like the problem – and risks losing the court’s confidence at the very moment they need it most.

<< BACK TO HOMEPAGE