Analysis
Eric Stanley King (deceased), a divorcee, died intestate on 15 April 2021. Rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR 1987) set out the order of priority for a grant of letters of administration on an intestacy; in this case, the persons entitled were the appellant and respondent (being the children of the deceased) and the three children of a third child who had predeceased the deceased. Where more than one person of the same degree was entitled to a grant, the court had a discretion as to which of them it should appoint as administrator. In this case the entitlement to a grant was disputed and by an order dated 11 July 2023 the District Probate Registrar ordered (without holding a hearing) that letters of administration in the deceased’s estate should issue to the respondent. The grant was then made on 7 August 2023. The appellant appealed.
Held (allowing the appeal in part):
Rule 65 NCPR 1987 provided that an appeal against the decision of a district judge or registrar shall be made on summons to a judge and, by virtue of order 58 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (which continued to apply notwithstanding the Civil Procedure Rules 1998), the appeal took the form of a rehearing with the judge being entitled to take the decision under appeal afresh. The task of the court was relatively straightforward where circumstances existed that plainly demonstrated that an applicant was unsuitable to carry out the role of administrator or was under a significant conflict of interest. However, where the position was more finely balanced it may be difficult to choose between the competing claims of two applicants and, in those circumstances, the court in its discretion could either select one of the two applicants on the basis of factors such as the views of a majority of the beneficiaries or, alternatively, it could pass over the claims of those entitled to a grant and appoint an independent administrator if by reason of any special circumstances it appeared to be necessary or expedient. Ultimately, in making its decision, the overall interests of the beneficiaries were paramount. On the facts of this case, there was no basis for the allegations made by the appellant – he was not capable of undertaking the role of administrator in a proportionate or constructive manner. As regards the alternative choice of retaining the respondent or appointing an independent administrator in his place, the position was more finely balanced and, taking all matters into account with the overall interests of the beneficiaries of the estate paramount, this was a case in which special circumstances made it necessary and expedient to pass over the claims of both parties and to appoint an independent professional as administrator pursuant to s116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Obiter: it was unfortunate that nothing had come of the consultation to replace the NCPR 1987 with a set of new rules to be named ‘the Probate Rules 2013’. The survival of an old-style appeal by way of rehearing lying to a judge as of right under order 58 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 was at odds with the overriding objective set out in r3A NCPR 1987 (ie to enable non-contentious and common form probate business to be dealt with justly and expeditiously by the court and registry).
JUDGMENT MR DAVID REES KC: Introduction [1] This is an appeal relating to the estate of Eric Sidney King (‘the Deceased’) who died on 15 April 2021. The Deceased died intestate and domiciled in England and Wales. By an order dated 11 July 2023 a District Probate Registrar in the Newcastle District Probate Registry ordered …Continue reading "King v King [2024] WTLR 177"