Hanson v Coleman and another [2025] EWHC 116 (Ch)
The recent High Court decision in Hanson v Coleman and another [2025] EWHC 116 (Ch) is a crucial case for those involved in estate administration disputes. As a solicitor specialising in contentious probate and trust litigation, the writer recognises the complexities of executor removal claims and the importance of securing fair outcomes for beneficiaries. This case serves as a strong precedent for beneficiaries seeking to remove executors who fail in their duties and provides key takeaways for solicitors handling similar disputes.
The case overview
The dispute arose when the claimant, Vivien Ann Hanson, sought to remove her two brothers, Jeremy Allard Coleman and Marcus Leonard Coleman, as executors of their late father’s estate. The central issues included:
- The executors’ conflict of interest due to their claims of greater beneficial ownership of estate properties;
- Significant delays in estate administration, potentially causing financial loss; and
- The Court’s decision to appoint an independent administrator to safeguard the estate’s interests.
The Court found that the executors had breached their duties and accordingly ordered their removal as executors.
Key legal principles and takeaways
1. Conflict of interest justifies removal
The defendants, as executors, attempted to assert personal claims over estate assets, placing them in a direct conflict of interest. The Court found that their failure to recognise this conflict until litigation was well underway justified their removal.
Lesson: If you are advising an executor who may have a personal claim against an estate, it is imperative to seek legal guidance early and consider renouncing or seeking their own removal of executorship if a conflict arises.
2. Delay and mismanagement can warrant judicial intervention
The executors made little progress in administering the estate, particularly in realising its interest in two properties. This delay, coupled with an inadequate explanation of a minority shareholding in an unlisted company, prompted the Court to intervene.
Lesson: Beneficiaries concerned about an executor’s inefficiency or failure to act in the estate’s best interest should seek legal advice on potential removal proceedings.
3. Costs and the loss of indemnity
Executors are usually indemnified by the estate in respect of their costs in disputes, as long as they have acted reasonably. In this case, the will also contained an exclusion of liability provision in respect of acts wrongfully done by the executors whilst in post.
The Court ruled that the executors had acted unreasonably, characterising the dispute as a beneficiaries’ dispute rather than a routine estate matter. Consequently, they were deprived of their indemnity for litigation costs, and the successful claimant’s costs were awarded on the standard basis, meaning that the removed executors were personally liable to pay the Claimant’s assessed costs. In respect of the exclusion clause, the judge held that the said clause related to loss caused to the estate as opposed to the executor’s liability for costs personally, and accordingly, the clause did not apply in this case.
Lesson: Executors defending removal proceedings should consider whether their opposition is in the estate’s interest or their own. If they act unreasonably, they risk personal liability for costs. They should also consider whether an application for a Beddoes order (i.e. an order granting the Court’s permission to defend proceedings) should be made.
Comment
If you are a beneficiary concerned about the conduct of an executor or an executor facing challenges in administering an estate, our firm specialises in contentious probate matters. We provide expert guidance on removing executors, resolving estate disputes, and ensuring the fair and efficient administration of estates.
How We Can Help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us