Hapeshi v Allnatt and Another (Defendants/Applicants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Marsh |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 2013 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2013] EWHC J1121-1 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Claim No: HC08C03128 |
| Date | 21 November 2013 |
[2013] EWHC J1121-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Rolls Building,
110 Fetter Lane,
London EC4 1NL
Master Marsh
Claim No: HC08C03128
Mr T Entwhistle appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Mr P Clarke appeared on behalf of the First Defendant.
Approved Judgment
Saturday, 21 November 2013
This matter has come back before the court today as there are issues between the claimant and the first defendant who are currently the joint executors of the Deceased's estate. She died in August 2007. In early 2010 His Honour Judge Hodge QC gave a judgment. It concerned assets that fall within the estate. It is now some 4 years later, and regrettably the estate has still not been fully administered. The property at 212 Craven Park Road, London NW5 has now been sold and I am told that the remainder of the estate is a sum of approximately £40,000. There is, at least potentially, an issue concerning money which was in an account in Cyprus. I will return to that point in a moment.
The application made by the first defendant is that the claimant be removed as executor and that she continue to administer the estate on her own. The basis of that application can be, I think, fairly summarised on the basis that there is a complete breakdown of relations between the claimant and the first defendant as to the administration of the estate. It is not just a matter that they do not get on. It is that there is a marked degree of distrust between them and the first defendant has made a number of allegations about the claimant's conduct.
The relevant test for the removal of an executor is well understood. It remains the test set out in Letterstedt v Broers as recently reconsidered in Re Angel: Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel. The test, put simply, is: what is in the best interests of the beneficiaries to the estate? On an application of this type, it is not necessary for the court to make any finding of misconduct, but there will usually need to be something more than mere strained relations between joint executors. In witness statements provided to me by the claimant and the first defendant the position, as at today, is there is common ground between them that the current position cannot remain. It is simply not a practical proposition for this estate to be administered by the claimant and the first defendant together.
The court is therefore faced with a choice which is between acceding to the first defendant's request that she continue on her own with the claimant removed or, alternatively, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial