Background
Background
Jean and Alexander Fernandez had six children, one of whom tragically died many years ago. They were survived by the appellant (“Julian”), the first and second respondents (“Leessa” and “Nick”), and the first and (originally) the second defendants to counterclaim (“Vanessa” and “Nigel”). Vanessa has a daughter, Tamsin. Nick has three children, Patrick, Daisy and Felix. Tamsin, Daisy and Patrick are the third, fourth and fifth defendants to counterclaim. Unfortunately, Nigel died in October 2022. For the purposes of dealing with the counterclaim and this appeal, it has not so far proved necessary to appoint someone to represent Nigel’s estate. So the second defendant to counterclaim is currently described merely as “The Estate of Nigel Anthony Greystone Fernandez”. The sixth defendant to counterclaim is a person appointed by Julian as a trustee of the 2008 trust. The defendants to counterclaim have played no part in this appeal.
Jean Fernandez died on 29 March 2010 and Alexander Fernandez died on 14 October 2013. At the time of their respective deaths, it was thought that each of them had died intestate. Leessa and Nick took out letters of administration to Jean’s estate in June 2013. Her estate included a flat in Courtfield Road, London SW7 (“Courtfield”), then and now occupied by Vanessa. Later in June 2015, Julian found a home-made will of Alexander, dated 1 October 1996. It appointed Jean and Julian as executors, gave pecuniary legacies, and left the residue to Jean. Julian obtained a grant of probate in January 2016. In February 2018, Julian found a home-made will of Jean, also dated 1 October 1996. It appointed Alexander and Julian as executors, gave pecuniary legacies, and left the residue to Alexander.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- The claim and the counterclaim
- Procedural matters
- The judgments below
- Grounds of appeal
- Stay and permission to appeal
- Appeals
- The arguments
- Nick and Leessa
- The law
- Removal of trustees
- Conflicts of interest and making unauthorised profits, as applied to executors and trustees
- Costs
- The grounds of appeal: discussion
- Ground 2: Failure to consider that the estate was substantially administered with the beneficiaries’ agreement
- Ground 3: Improper and erroneous conclusions
- Ground 4: Improper removal of the trustee from a discretionary trust
- Ground 5: Unwarranted criticism of an earlier district judge
- Ground 6: Procedural irregularities and unequal treatment prejudiced the appellant
- Ground 7: Significant misunderstanding of facts
- Ground 8: Failing to give sufficient weight to evidence corroborating the appellant’s position
- Ground 9: Erroneous order for costs against the executor
- Ground 10: Costs awarded on an indemnity basis
- Ground 11: Failure to provide adequate reasons for decisions
- Final comment
- Conclusions
![CH-2025-BRS-000001 - [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)