Fernandez v Fernandez [2025]: The New “Zero Tolerance” for Bad Executors

For years, removing an executor was incredibly difficult, you had to prove they were a thief. That changed in 2025. Following the landmark High Court ruling in Fernandez v Fernandez [2025], the court has signaled a “Zero Tolerance” policy for executors who cause delays or foster mistrust. This article explains why a “breakdown of relations” is now enough to get an executor fired and why the court is now routinely appointing Neutral Professional Administrators to break family deadlocks.

The End of the “Executor’s Shield”

Historically, being named an executor was seen as a “right.” Courts were reluctant to remove someone unless they had committed a crime. But this led to thousands of estates being “held hostage” by a sibling who refused to communicate, wouldn’t sell the house, or simply sat on the paperwork for years.

In Fernandez v Fernandez [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch), the High Court made it clear: the welfare of the beneficiaries is the “guiding star.” If an executor’s conduct makes the administration “unworkable,” they are out. The court specifically ruled that dishonesty is no longer a requirement for removal. If the trust has broken down completely, that is sufficient grounds.

The “Self-Proving” Breakdown

The genius of the Fernandez ruling is that the litigation itself can prove the need for removal. If the executor and beneficiaries are so at odds that they are in the High Court, the judge can conclude that the administration is clearly “unworkable.”

The court is now increasingly using Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to appoint a solicitor or accountant as a “Neutral Manager.” While this costs the estate money, it ensures the house is sold, the tax is paid, and the beneficiaries get their money within months, rather than years.

Cost Warnings for Stalling Executors

Perhaps the most significant part of the 2025 landscape is the Cost Order. In the past, executors used the estate’s money to defend themselves. Following Fernandez, if an executor “unreasonably” defends a removal application, the judge will now order them to pay the legal fees out of their own pocket. This “personal liability” is the most effective tool we have to force a difficult executor to step down voluntarily.

Let’s Do This Together

Contesting a will could become an overwhelming experience if not accompanied by expert guidance and support. Our mission is to provide you with all the needed information, support, and authority to get through this journey, with only one goal in mind: Fairness.

To our team, this process is not about winning; it’s about claiming what was yours from the beginning.

Check our guide to learn more on how to cope with the emotional toll of contesting a will: The Emotional Toll of Contesting a Will and How to Cope: Legal Grounds and When Not to Contest a Will

Get your free, no-obligation case assessment. Call 08002980029 or visit contestawilltoday.com

FAQs

1. My sibling says I can’t remove them because “Dad chose me.” Is that true in 2025?

Not anymore. While “Dad’s choice” is a factor, it is not a veto. Under the Fernandez precedent, the court cares more about the living beneficiaries than the dead testator’s choice if that choice is now causing a disaster.

2. How “bad” does the relationship have to be?

A simple argument isn’t enough. The court looks for a “total loss of confidence.” If you haven’t spoken in a year, or if every email ends in a legal threat, that is the level of “hostility” that justifies a Fernandez removal application.

3. Can an executor use the estate’s money to fight their own removal?

Usually, no. The 2025 ruling in Fernandez confirmed that if an executor is fighting for their own “personal” right to stay in office (rather than for the benefit of the estate), they cannot use the estate’s funds to pay their lawyers. They are on their own.