No: FD22F00062 - [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)

When searching for potential candidates to act as independent administrator of their mother’s estate, Ruth spoke about the case to Mr James Lister of Stevens & Bolton about his firm’s trust company taking on the role. Stevens & Bolton Trust Corporation was not selected as administrator. Subsequently Mr Lister was instructed by Susan to act for her in these proceedings. This has been the cause of considerable concern and anger to Ruth who effectively accused Mr Green of conspiring with Mr Lister against her and David. I have not seen any evidence that would lend credence to this allegation. Mr Lister has explained that he did not consider that his previous discussion with Ruth caused any professional difficulty in his representing Susan in these proceedings, and there is nothing to suggest that the support given by Susan and her representatives to Mr Green’s efforts to administer the Deceased’s estate is demonstrative of anything other than the natural concern that a residuary beneficiary would have when the administration of an estate has been delayed as long as this one has.

There has been reference in some documents prepared by Mr Green’s firm to Ruth having originally been appointed as an executor under the will. I am satisfied that this is simply an error and Mr Green confirmed that this was the case. The error has no consequences for Ruth.

David and Ruth have also accused Mr Green of seeking to use up the estate through incurring costs, including by the bringing of the possession proceedings. Again, I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case. Whether the possession proceedings will succeed is a matter that will be decided in the County Court later this year, but on the limited information that I have about the situation, I can entirely understand why Mr Green may have considered it necessary to take that step. As to the level of costs generally, Ruth points towards the fact that on a summary assessment in the possession proceedings one of Mr Green’s bills was reduced from around £5,000 to £1,000. However, I note that this would have been a summary assessment conducted on a party-party basis by reference to the standard basis. Any assessment of Mr Green’s costs charged to the estate will be conducted on a solicitor-client basis by reference to the indemnity basis. Ruth has indicated an intention to challenge Mr Green’s administration costs.

In the course of their submissions David and Ruth have made other, wider, allegations against Mr Green in their submissions, including that he has sought to profit from the administration of other estates and that he was planning to profit personally from the sale of the Property. Not one shred of evidence was produced in support of these allegations, which I consider to be wholly unfounded. I have seen nothing to suggest that Mr Green’s conduct is anything other than that to be expected of an independent professional seeking to administer an estate in circumstances where there is significant tension and ill-feeling between the affected family members.