Reported Case Study - Removal of an Executor

We acted for the second defendant in the reported case of Aslam v Seeley & Another [2025] EWHC 24 (Ch).

Our client was one of 2 daughters of Narayana Samy Madana Gopalan deceased. Together with her sister, our client was a residuary beneficiary entitled to 50% of the estate. There was a difficult and troubled relationship between the sisters and our client had concerns about her sister’s friendship with the named Executor and the handling of the administration of the estate.

As a consequence of the above, lawyers were appointed and our client invited the Executor to agree to be removed and an independent administrator be appointed. This was refused, and the Executor continued to allow substantial delays in relation to the administration, including substantial delays in progressing the sale of the main asset, a property. Ultimately, the Executor took the unusual step of making an application herself to be removed and an independent administrator appointed.

The thrust of the litigation then turned to who would have to pay legal costs incurred by both the sisters and the Executor. Ultimately, the court ordered that our client’s costs and the Executor’s costs should be paid from the estate and that the level of costs claimed by the Executor should be quite significantly reduced.

How we helped

1. Advising our client on costs/benefits - the estate was relatively small (shown as £372,920.00 net on the Grant) with the main asset being the property. Every attempt was made to avoid costly litigation and try to resolve things with minimal cost to ensure that inheritance was not depleted.

2. Ensuring that we were holding the Executor to account - for the fact that no progress in administration of the estate took place in the “Executor’s year”. which ultimately resulted in the Executor deciding to stand aside.

3. Ensuring that our client was not significantly disadvantaged by bearing sole responsibility for her costs which were incurred largely due to her sister’s and the Executor’s unreasonable behaviour, and that overall costs taken from the estate (affecting her inheritance) were fair and reasonable.