A Lesson In The Appointment Of An Administrator When An Intestacy Arises

KING V STEPHEN KING [2023] EWHC 2822 (FAM)

Background

The Family Court has been asked to consider the principles for deciding who should be appointed as administrator of an estate where the deceased has died intestate, and a dispute has arisen in relation to that appointment.

Eric Sidney King died intestate survived by two children, Stephen and Philip who pursuant to the Intestacy Rules (22(1) Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987) had an equal entitlement to a grant to administer his estate. A grant had been issued to Stephen, but Philip had challenged the decision.

The High Court looked at the case on appeal with Mr David Rees KC (sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court) tasked with deciding whether to appoint Philip or Steven as administrator or pass over both claims and appoint an independent professional administrator.

The judge was clear that Philip was not a suitable appointment. He said that he did not consider Philip to be “capable of undertaking the task in a proportionate or constructive manner” and that whilst he was “no doubt a clever man” he had “no ability to discriminate between the important and the unimportant, the relevant and the irrelevant, or between the good point and the bad”.

He said that the main disadvantage of appointing an independent administrator over Stephen would be the increased costs incurred in appointing an independent professional and the speed at which they would be able to administer the estate. However, the advantage would be to take the administration of the estate out of the hands of either family branch reducing the potential for contentious litigation.

Taking both sides into account, the judge concluded that irrespective of the possible cost saving in appointing Stephen the appointment of an independent professional administrator would be in the best interests of the estate and the beneficiaries.

Broader issues

This case demonstrates how intense family disputes over estate administration can become, as well as how probate rules and legal principles are applied in practice.

It demonstrates the exercise of judicial discretion in appointing administrators, and considerations such as the preference given to the views of the majority of beneficiaries, the cost and complexity of administering estates.

Judgment

The judge evaluated the evidence and the logic of both parties’ arguments, and critically assessed the suitability and conduct of both Philip and Stephen, considering their relationship, behaviour, and potential for managing the estate effectively.

The Judge found Philip’s approach lacked proportionality and he was unable to distinguish between significant and trivial matters, whilst also having concerns over Stephen’s actions.

The judge reflected the complexity of balancing the need for impartial administration against the desire to avoid unnecessary costs that might diminish the estate’s value for beneficiaries, including the potential for future litigation.

Whilst the judge acknowledged the additional costs an independent administrator might incur, he prioritised the overall interests of the estate over the interests of the individual beneficiaries.

Comment

As is frequently the case in the administration of an estate and particularly an intestate estate, conflicts between family members can arise.

However, this case shows that should such a conflict be brought before the Court, it will carefully balance the evidence, rules, and wider interests. It will take into account a holistic assessment of the family dynamics and conduct and the requirement for the fair and efficient administration of the estate.

As in this case, this can often result in the appointment of an independent administrator over a particular family member.