In a recent High Court decision, Fernandez v Fernandez and others [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch), HHJ Paul Matthews removed an executor and trustee from his role in administering two estates and a family trust. The case offers a timely reminder of the standards expected of executors of an estate – and the consequences that could be faced when those standards aren’t met.
The background
Julian Fernandez was appointed executor of his parents’ wills and later became trustee of a discretionary trust they had created. His siblings challenged his role; citing delays, lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest. The estates included valuable assets, such as a London flat and development land in Dorset, and had been under administration for over a decade.
Despite Julian’s argument that most of the administration was complete, the Court found that unresolved disputes (which had been brought by Julian personally), including claims for reimbursement and allegations of bias, were impeding progress.
Why was he removed?
The court didn’t need to find mismanagement, misconduct or dishonesty. Instead, it focused on whether Julian’s continued involvement was in the best interests of the beneficiaries. Key concerns included:
- Conflicts of interest: Julian had made claims for payment from the estate and was involved in decisions affecting his own financial interests.
- Breakdown of trust: His relationship with other beneficiaries had deteriorated to the point where his task as an executor was no longer possible.
- Delay: The administration had dragged on for years, with key assets still unresolved.
The judge concluded that an independent professional trustee was needed to bring the matter to a close.
Costs and consequences
Julian was ordered to pay the costs of the litigation and the removal application personally and was denied the usual indemnity from the estate because the costs had not been ‘properly incurred’. The court drew a clear line between costs incurred in administering an estate (e.g. preparing accounts and distributing assets) and those arising from hostile litigation (e.g. defending personal conduct or resisting removal).
Conclusion
This case reinforces several important principles:
- Fiduciary duties matter: Even well-intentioned executors must avoid conflicts and act transparently, and always in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
- Relationships matter: A breakdown in the relationship is not sufficient to justify the replacement of an executor or trustee, but it is relevant where the administration of the estates and trust is compromised.
- Professional help may be necessary: Where disputes arise, appointing an independent administrator can be the most efficient solution. In reaching this decision, the size of the estate and the scope of work will need be considered.
- Removal of an executor: A case for removal should seek to demonstrate how the administration of the estate has been affected and the interests of the beneficiaries impacted.
Final thoughts
Whether you are acting as an executor or trustee (or seeking to remove one), it is essential that you understand the associated duties and obligations imposed by the court and obtain advice early if difficulties arise. This case shows that courts will intervene where necessary to protect beneficiaries and ensure estates are properly managed.
If you would like further information, advice or assistance regarding the administration of an estate please do contact a member of our team.
This is only intended to be a summary and not specific legal advice.
