High Court finds no realistic prospect of co-operation between joint executors of an estate
In personal representatives make it impossible to complete an estate’s administration, the High Court has ruled in a dispute between two joint executors.
Master Clark appointed Cripps Trust Corporation Limited as independent administrator of her two children, Laura Key and Richard Key, co-operating to conclude the administration.
The judgment, Laura Lillian Key v Richard Duncan Key [2026] EWHC 2098 (Ch), was handed administrator of the estate of Grace Baillie Key after finding there was “no realistic prospectdown on 14 August 2026 in the Property, Trusts and Probate List of the High Court’s Chancery Division.
Laura and Richard were joint executors and the only beneficiaries under their mother’s will. The estate included Ebury Lodge, which had a probate value of £2 million, as well as a 50% shareholding each in the family business, Ebury Court Residential Home Limited.
The court was asked to consider whether the siblings should be removed as executors and replaced by independent estate administrator appointments can be justified where conflict between independent administrators. The dispute had generated legal costs of £266,000, with Laura’s costs at £170,000 and Richard’s at £96,000.
Master Clark said the relationship between the parties was marked by conflict and mistrust, with fault on both sides. Richard had initially excluded Laura from the property and paperwork, while his approach to renting the property was described as unreasonable because the mortgagee had prohibited letting it.
The court also criticised Richard for entering a caveat after Laura refused to agree to renting the property. Master Clark said there were no proper grounds for the caveat, which prevented a grant of probate from being obtained while it remained in place.
However, Laura was also found to have contributed to the delay by repeatedly refusing or failing to engage in progressing the estate administration, which the court said was equally her responsibility as a joint executor.
The court applied the principles governing removal of personal representatives under section 50, including the need to consider the best interests of the beneficiaries as a whole. A breakdown in relations does not, by itself, justify replacement. But where the breakdown makes administration difficult or impossible, replacement may be necessary. The additional cost of appointing professional representatives is also a material consideration.
Master Clark concluded that resolving the specific disputes between Laura and Richard would not address their underlying distrust and hostility. Further disagreements would likely arise and could require additional court proceedings.
An experienced professional administrator could instead deal with the outstanding matters impartially, the judge found. Cripps was therefore appointed to administer the estate.
The judgment also addressed the proposed sale of Ebury Lodge. Master Clark rejected the argument that a proper sale price could only be established through an open-market sale with vacant possession. The court noted that an off-market purchase by a beneficiary may be authorised where the estate’s interests are best served by it, based on appropriate valuation evidence.
The single joint expert had valued the property at £1.65 million in June 2026. The court said the appropriate price was the open-market value with vacant possession.
The judgment further confirmed that Richard was not necessarily entitled to occupy the property rent-free. The administrator will be able to consider the market occupation rent, any benefit to the estate from the property being occupied and properly incurred expenses when determining what is fair between the parties.
For solicitors advising executors in contested estate administrations, the decision underlines the importance of assessing whether joint representatives can realistically continue working together. The court’s focus is not simply whether there has been wrongdoing, but whether the administration can be completed effectively and in the beneficiaries’ overall interests.