The recent decision in House and another v Helme and another in the King’s Bench Division (Property, Trusts and Probate List) offers a striking reminder of the high standards expected of executors and the court’s willingness to intervene where estate administration goes awry. The judgment is a textbook example of how delay, conflicts of interest and poor decision‑making can cumulatively justify the removal of executors and lead to serious cost consequences.
The case concerned the administration of the estate of Mary Organ, who died in December 2017. Eight years later, the estate remained incomplete, the main asset had only recently been marketed, and the residuary beneficiaries, two charities, had lost confidence in the executors. The court ultimately removed the defendants from office, replacing them with Stone King Trust Corporation Limited, and ordered the defendants to pay the claimants’ costs on the indemnity basis, without any right to reimbursement from the estate.
This judgment is rich with lessons for personal representatives, solicitors and beneficiaries alike.
Background: a delayed and troubled administration
Mary Organ’s will appointed the two defendants as executors, leaving pecuniary legacies of £200,000 and the residue, which was worth several million, to two charities. Despite the estate’s size and relative simplicity, the administration stalled almost immediately:
- Probate was not obtained until April 2022, more than four years after death;
- The claimants were not informed of their beneficial interest until August 2020, and only then by a third party;
- The estate’s most valuable asset, Church Farm, worth around £2 million, was not marketed until 2023; and
- When a prospective buyer emerged in 2024, Simon Evans, a relative of the testatrix and a client of the executors’ solicitors, the executors allowed the sale to drift for 18 months despite the buyers lacking funds.
The claimants’ concerns escalated when, on 12 December 2025, they issued proceedings seeking the executors’ removal and an injunction to preserve estate assets. Upon learning of the application, but before being served, the executors immediately exchanged contracts for the sale of Church Farm to Mr and Mrs Evans.
Submissions: competing narratives
The claimants’ case
The charities argued that the executors should be removed because:
- They had failed to notify the claimants of their interest for over 2½ years;
- They had caused significant and unjustified delays, particularly in selling Church Farm;
- They had allowed conflicts of interest, including:
- their solicitors acting for both buyer and seller;
- the sale of farm machinery to the second defendant;
- the first defendant charging private client rates for non‑legal tasks;
- They had accelerated the exchange of contracts to avoid an injunction; and
- Their conduct justified indemnity costs and they should not be indemnified from the estate.
The defendants’ position
Initially resisting removal, the defendants eventually conceded the point. They argued, however, that:
- Delays were caused by the behaviour of a third party (Mr Outlaw) and the complexity of the estate;
- Their solicitors’ limited resources explained the slow progress;
- They should not be penalised with indemnity costs; and
- They were entitled to an indemnity from the estate for their own legal costs.
The Court’s analysis
The judge’s reasoning was unsparing.
1. Delay was unjustified and damaging
The eight‑year delay in completing administration was “not justified”. Even if Mr Outlaw had been difficult, the executors could have:
- sought court directions;
- replaced their solicitors; or
- taken other steps to progress the estate.
Their failure undermined the beneficiaries’ confidence.
2. Conflicts of interest were mishandled
The court found multiple conflict issues:
- The same solicitors acting for both sides of the Church Farm sale blunted the executors’ bargaining position;
- The executors failed to obtain the claimants’ informed consent to this arrangement;
- The sale of farm machinery to the second defendant was unauthorised self‑dealing, even if the price was fair; and
- Charging private client rates for watering cattle was improper.
3. The refusal to remarket Church Farm was “extraordinary”
The buyers lacked funds for 18 months. The claimants repeatedly asked for the property to be remarketed. The executors refused.
Given that the claimants were the only substantial beneficiaries, this refusal was “extraordinary”.
4. Exchange of contracts was improperly accelerated
The court inferred that the executors accelerated the sale to avoid the injunction. They had previously said exchange would occur “at the beginning of next week”, yet exchanged immediately after learning of the application.
This was a key factor in the court’s decision on costs.
5. Costs: conduct “out of the norm”
The court held that the defendants’ conduct justified indemnity costs, citing:
- the rushed exchange of contracts;
- failure to serve complete evidence on time; and
- refusal to agree to removal unless costs were waived.
6. No indemnity from the estate
Executors are normally entitled to indemnity for costs properly incurred. But here:
- the costs were incurred on their own behalf;
- their conduct amounted to misconduct; and
- they had breached their duties.
Accordingly, they were not entitled to reimbursement from the estate.
The outcome
The court ordered:
- Removal of the defendants as executors;
- Appointment of Stone King Trust Corporation Limited in their place;
- Indemnity costs payable by the defendants personally; and
- No right of indemnity from the estate for any of their costs.
The judge invited the parties to agree a minute of order to give effect to the judgment.
Why this case matters
This decision is a powerful reminder that:
- Executors must act promptly, transparently and in the beneficiaries’ best interests;
- Conflicts of interest must be identified early and managed with care;
- Personal representatives cannot expect the estate to shield them from the consequences of their own misconduct;
- Courts will intervene decisively where confidence in executors has been undermined.
For charities, the case underscores the importance of monitoring estate administration and taking action when concerns arise.
For practitioners, it highlights the risks of acting without adequate resources, failing to manage conflicts and allowing delays to accumulate.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is an Associate in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us
If this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.