Executor Removal In Jersey: Insights From Lakeman Case



Ogier  logo
Ogier provides legal advice on BVI, Cayman, Guernsey, Irish, Jersey and Luxembourg law. Our network of locations also includes Beijing, Hong Kong, London, Shanghai, Singapore and Tokyo. Legal services for the corporate and financial sectors form the core of our business, principally in the areas of banking and finance, corporate, investment funds, dispute resolution, private equity and private wealth. We also have strong practices in the areas of employee benefits and incentives, employment law, regulatory, restructuring and corporate recovery and property. Our corporate administration business, Ogier Global, works closely with Ogier's partner-led legal teams to incorporate and administer a wide variety of vehicles, offering clients integrated legal and corporate administration services. We have the knowledge and expertise to handle the most demanding and complex transactions and provide expert, efficient and cost effective services to all our clients.
An executor (or administrator) is key to the probate process. They are responsible for administering the estate of the deceased and distributing to beneficiaries.
Jersey Family and Matrimonial
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

An executor (or administrator) is key to the probate process. They are responsible for administering the estate of the deceased and distributing to beneficiaries. It is thankfully rare for there to be contentious disputes between the executor and beneficiaries. However, the Royal Court has recently explored the removal of an executor in the decision of Lakeman v Lakeman [2023] JRC 187.

In Lakeman, one brother sought removal of the other as executor on the grounds he unreasonably delayed administering the estate, was incapable, in poor health and was hostile towards the beneficiaries.

The Court found the executor failed to open an estate account, despite various agencies attempting to assist him. He also failed to comply with various Court orders. It was found that he was not independent and, in view of the hostility displayed to the beneficiaries, was unlikely to be able to comply with his fiduciary duties.

Agreeing with observations made in the Court of Appeal case of Representation of MacKinnon [2010] JLR 508, the Court confirmed that a beneficiary is 'entitled to expect a reasonable level of competence, proportionality and good sense from the person entrusted with protecting their interests' and that the beneficiaries had not received it. Thus, on the facts of this case, the executor was removed, and a professional executor appointed.

As regards costs, the Court found that the behaviour of the executor removed was sufficiently unreasonable, taken as a whole, to justify him being ordered to pay the costs of the application. It was ordered that those costs be paid from his share of the net moveable estate and paid to the applicant's Advocate before any balance was distributed to him.

Article 17 of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998 provides a mechanism for the removal of an executor and this decision is thought to be the first instance of the Court examining the grounds for removal. The Lakeman case clarifies that whilst it is certainly possible to remove an executor, it will only be in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, professional advice should be sought before any application is made to the Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More