Ali v Taj [2020] WTLR 391

Analysis

The respondents were the residuary beneficiaries of the estate of Mohammed Taj; the appellant was the deceased’s younger brother and one of his two executors. The deceased died on 1 September 2007, and probate was granted on 7 May 2008 to the appellant and his co-executor. Various issues arose in the course of administering the estate, and in the eleven years following the grant the executors had not provided an inventory of the estate’s assets nor an account of their administration.

The respondents issued a summons for the executors to exhibit on oath an inventory and account of the deceased’s estate (the summons). In the meantime, the respondents began to take steps to remove the executors under s50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. The executors contended that they were in the process of issuing their own application for directions under Part 64 of the CPR, as they were concerned that the deceased’s will was invalidly executed.

The summons was heard by District Registrar Murphy sitting at the District Probate Registry at Manchester on 7 August 2019 without either side being in attendance. The District Registrar ordered that the executors should provide an inventory and an account within 28 days, and ordered them to pay the respondents’ costs in full.

The appellant appealed by summons against these orders, on the basis that:

1. a) The administration of the estate was in dispute, and as a result this had become contentious probate business and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the District Registrar (and the Family Division more generally).
2. b) The orders were unjust as a result of serious procedural irregularity – particularly as the matter was resolved without a hearing and without the executors having a chance to respond to the summons.
3. c) The decision was wrong in principle, given the contentious surrounding circumstances, and the difficulties that the executors had faced in administering the estate.

Held:

1. (1) The appeal was dismissed, save as to the appeal against the costs order, which was to be determined following further written submissions.
2. (2) The matter remained within the jurisdiction of the Family Division. Disagreements between parties do not result in non-contentious probate business becoming contentious business.
3. (3) While the procedural course of the summons had been ‘sub-optimal’, the appeal proceeded by way of a rehearing so those procedural deficiencies did not affect the disposition of the appeal.
4. (4) The ambit of the discretion under s25 of the Administration of Justice Act 1925 is relatively narrow. The court will ordinarily exercise this discretion in favour of ordering an inventory and account and the circumstances in which it will not do so are limited. Even very considerable practical difficulties will not prevent the court from ordering an account or inventory to be rendered, although the court may make allowances for the difficulty of the task by way of the timescale within which it requires to the task to be completed.
5. (5) In this case there was no reason why the court’s discretion ought not be exercised – the respondents had been waiting eleven years to understand how the estate had been administered, and it would be unconscionable to allow this situation to continue.

JUDGMENT MACDONALD J: Introduction [1] In this matter I am concerned with what has been listed as an application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow if permission is granted against an order made by District Registrar Murphy on 7 August 2019 requiring the Appellant to exhibit on oath a true and perfect inventory …

Continue reading "Ali v Taj [2020] WTLR 391"