Removal of executors: How the Court Decides Applications Under Section 50

April 9, 2026

The issue as to whether executors should remain acting in the Estate where conflicts or apparent arise, or indeed there is simply an impasse, is something that we regularly have to engage with and advise upon at Herrington Carmichael.

There have been some interesting cases that have had our engagement over the last few months, and whilst the topic is far in excess of what I can write about in a short article, a short overview is hopefully helpful.

How the court exercises its discretion

Removal under Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 is governed by the discretion of the court.

How the court will exercise its discretion is routinely cited in the context of Harris v Earwicker [2015] EWHC 1915 (Ch), where Chief Master Marsh said, it is unnecessary for the court to find wrongdoing or fault on the part of the personal representatives; the guiding principle is whether the administration of the Estate is being carried out properly. To put it another way, when looking at the welfare of the beneficiaries, is it in their best interest to replace one or more of the personal representatives?

Wrongdoing, fault, and the welfare of beneficiaries

If there is wrongdoing or fault and it is material, such as to endanger the Estate, the court is very likely to exercise its powers under Section 50. If, however, there may be some proper criticism of the personal representatives, but it is minor, and this will not affect the administration of the Estate or its assets, it may well not be necessary to exercise the power.

Considering the wishes of the testator and beneficiaries

The wishes of the testator, as reflected in the Will, concerning the identity of the personal representatives, are an important factor to take into account.

The wishes of the beneficiaries may also be relevant. I would add, however, that the beneficiaries, or some of them, have no right to demand replacement, and the court has to make a balanced judgment taking a broad view about what is in the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole. This is particularly important where there are competing points of view.

When is the removal of a beneficiary justifiable?

The court needs to consider whether, in the absence of significant wrongdoing or fault, it has become impossible or difficult for the personal representatives to complete the administration of the Estate or administer the Will trusts. The court must review what has been done to administer the Estate and what remains to be done. A breakdown of the relationship between some or all of the beneficiaries and the personal representatives will not, without more, justify their replacement. If, however, the breakdown of relations makes the task of the personal representatives difficult or impossible, replacement may be the only option.

The additional cost of replacing some or all of the personal representatives, particularly where it is proposed to appoint professional persons, is a material consideration. The size of the Estate and the scope and cost of the work which will be needed will have to be considered.

As such, the first question might well be said to be whether the administration of the Estate generally demands that the personal representative should be removed and if there is no other way the administration can proceed.

Where issues of conflict arise that will be a key consideration to take into the assessment process. It is also the costs of carrying out a replacement that need to be borne in mind and they need to be considered by clients before they embark on the exercise of making an application to the court under Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act. Also, a recent case reported, that only came to my knowledge as a consequence of a barrister posting on LinkedIn, is the judge’s judgment of Harris v Quantic [2026] EWHC 137 (Ch). This is an interesting case and the facts are quite drastic in terms of the way in which the litigation proceeded and the costs involved in the removal and how it was achieved. What is a key takeaway from the judgment is unreasonable conduct can have a significant effect and when considering whether the conduct is reasonable or unreasonable, no doubt the costs incurred in proportion to the Estate will be a very important consideration along with the reaction to the need and/or approach of those engaging in the removal process and how they do so.

Key lessons on beneficiary removal from Harris v Quantic

In the case of Harris v Quantic, the outcome was a personal liability of a professional representative for taking an unreasonable course of conduct in the eyes of the court. Anybody reading the judgment, I’m sure, would be likely to see there were a lot of complexities, but the analysis was very damning of the actions of the professional representative in that particular case and in the context of what was involved.

How can Herrington Carmichael help

Here at Herrington Carmichael, we’re able to advise on removal applications and defend removal applications and if you have concerns or queries in relation to the actions of executors or administrators, please don’t hesitate to contact our team.

Mike Pollard
Legal Director, Will, Trust & Estate Disputes
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us
Francesca Falzarano
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights