Contents of Wills

Executors, trustees and guardians—who are they?

An executor is the person appointed by the Will to administer the property of the testator. Failing to appoint one or more executors does not invalidate a Will; however, such an omission is inadvisable as it would result in a period after the death when no one is in control of the testator's estate and affairs. A testator may appoint any number of executors but probate will not be granted to more than four in respect of the same part of the deceased's estate.

When a client is considering appointing a solicitor or firm as executor(s) they must be provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision about the appointment and its related costs.

The court has power, if necessary, to remove a personal representative (PR) or all of the PRs and to appoint a person to act in their stead, either before or following the grant of representation.

Where a Will trust is to be created, it is, in general, convenient to appoint the same persons as both executors and trustees. The functions of executors and trustees are different

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

High Court makes order regarding funeral arrangements where two executors disagree (Patel v Patel)

Private Client analysis: The High Court has resolved a dispute between two executors over the funeral arrangements for their father, a devout Hindu. In a sensible and sensitive decision which reviewed and applied settled principles, the judge (HHJ Paul Matthews) considered the various factors which favoured cremation in England over burial in India. These included the wishes of the deceased, the views of his family, the strength of his connections to the UK and India, and practicalities such as cost and delay. While the relevant factors and their relative weight will inevitably be fact-sensitive, similar factors are likely to recur in many such cases. What is clear is that no single factor (in particular, the deceased’s own wishes) will necessarily be conclusive, so that the court must weigh all relevant factors with care. Written by Kyle Bonnell, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

Dignity, delay, and declarations on best interests (NHS South East London ICB v JP & the Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability)

Private Client analysis: The decision that being provided with nutrition and hydration was contrary to JP’s best interests is recorded in a separate judgment (NHS South East London Integrated Care Board v JP & Others. This judgment focused on the delay in bringing the matter to court, which delay ‘compromised [JP]’s dignity’ (para [5]). Incapacitious individuals like JP are uniquely vulnerable and their interests require vigilant protection. Their inherent dignity as human beings requires regular assessment of where their best interests lie. Hospital trusts, charities, and ICBs all have to be proactive in promoting the dignity of such individuals. Disputes between family members must not be permitted to delay applications being made to court; instead, they are a signal to make an application. Family members are consulted to illuminate P’s likely wishes and feelings and values and beliefs, not to ascertain the family’s views on what is best. Sensitivity to strongly held family views should not be permitted to detract from the proper focus of decision-making: P’s best interests. Written by Katherine Hampshire, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn.

Question of the week: Where an individual dies with UK nationality, domiciled in Scotland, with assets in England and Scotland, would their Will executed in accordance with the law of any part of the UK be validly executed under section 1 of the Wills Act 1963? What is the position as regards conflicts of laws as between England and Scotland? Which laws would apply to the succession of their moveable and immoveable assets situated in England and Scotland?

This Q&A contains links to further guidance on the validity of Wills under Wills Act 1963 and on the possible application of English private international law where the estate's foreign element is the Scottish domicile of the testator or the situs of assets in Scotland at their death.

Private Client weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Changizi v Changizi, where a non-exempt beneficiary’s share of estate was liable for IHT under Re Ratcliffe; (2) Argyll and Bute Council v RF (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), in which the Court of Protection refuses an application for recognition and enforcement of a Scottish Guardianship order; (3) Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in which the Supreme Court held that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration; (4) Companies House launches a new voluntary identity verification service; (5) Armstrong v Bhattacharya, which highlights the importance of clear, contemporaneous documentary evidence and a consistent case in circumstances where a person wishes to demonstrate that ownership of a property differs to that which is recorded at HM Land Registry; (6) Tedford v Clarke, in which the court held that although a Will was badly drafted, it was not meaningless and was therefore capable of construction; and (7) a review of the first century of the Law of Property Act 1925.