Farra is a death administration assistant for UK families. Get step-by-step guidance for registering a death, applying for probate, notifying banks, and managing bereavement admin. From essential documents to practical checklists, Farra simplifies estate paperwork and funeral-related tasks so you can focus on what matters.
The law on joint executors is looser than most people expect. As a general rule one executor can act for the estate on their own, and their act binds the others — with a statutory exception for selling or transferring land, which needs all the proving executors or a court order. In practice, a disagreement still stalls an estate, because a bank or buyer may want every executor's signature and because each executor stays answerable for what they do. When talking and mediation fail, the court can be asked to decide the particular question, or, if the working relationship has broken down so far that the administration cannot go on, to remove or replace an executor. This page describes England and Wales.
When a will names two or more executors, they often find themselves making decisions together for the first time, at a hard moment, about the estate of someone they both loved. Disagreement is common. This page explains what the law actually requires of joint executors and the ways a deadlock can be resolved. It describes the law of England and Wales.
No — and this is one of the most commonly repeated mistakes about executors.
The general rule: one executor can act for all. In Birdseye v Roythorne & Co [2015] EWHC 1003 (Ch), Newey J confirmed that "the act of one of joint representatives is regarded as the act of all and is binding", and that the law recognises "the general rule that a single executor can act alone". He described the principle as "deeply entrenched". The same rule applies to administrators appointed together under a joint grant.
Trustees are the opposite. The same judgment points out that the law on executors "differs in this respect from that relating to trustees, who have to act together. It is not even possible for a majority of (non-charitable) trustees to bind a minority." This matters because the same people can be both. Where a will sets up a continuing trust — for example, money held for children until they reach a certain age — the executors may go on to hold that property as trustees, and at that point the stricter rule applies. Where that line falls in a particular estate is a legal question that depends on the will and on how far the administration has gone.
Land is the statutory exception. Section 2(2) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provides that where there are two or more personal representatives, a conveyance of land, or a contract for one, "shall not … be made without the concurrence therein of all such representatives or an order of the court". So one executor cannot sell or transfer the house alone. There is a qualification: where probate has been granted to some only of the named executors, "whether or not power is reserved to the other or others", the proving executors can convey the land without a court order. An executor who has not taken out the grant cannot block a sale by those who have.
Receiving the sale money. Section 27(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 generally requires capital money from land to be paid to at least two trustees, but expressly "does not affect the right of a sole personal representative as such to give valid receipts".
Knowing the strict legal position rarely ends a dispute in practice, for three reasons.
Delay also has its own costs. Interest can run on unpaid inheritance tax, and a property left empty still has to be insured and maintained — see our guide to probate delays and inheritance tax interest.
The disputes that bring executors to a standstill are often about:
Talking it through, with information. Many disagreements are about facts that can be checked — what a property is worth, what an investment will cost to hold — and an independent valuation or professional opinion can take the heat out of them.
Mediation. A mediator is a neutral third party who helps the people involved reach their own agreement; they do not impose a decision. Our guide to mediation in estate disputes explains how it works. No official body publishes mediators' fees. If the dispute does reach court, the judge deciding who pays the costs looks at the parties' conduct, which expressly includes whether a party "unreasonably failed to engage in alternative dispute resolution" (CPR 44.2(5)(e)).
Where the disagreement is about a particular step, the court can decide it without anyone being removed. Part 64 of the Civil Procedure Rules covers claims "for the court to determine any question arising in … the administration of the estate of a deceased person" (r.64.2(a)); in that Part, references to trustees include executors and administrators (r.64.1(2)).
There is also a costs reason for executors to use this route rather than act and hope. When the court decides whether an executor's legal costs were "properly incurred" and can come out of the estate, the first factor Practice Direction 46 lists is whether they "obtained directions from the court before bringing or defending the proceedings" (para 1.1(a)).
In a more serious breakdown, the court can make an administration order, under which the administration is carried out under its direction (r.64.2(b)). Practice Direction 64A says the court will only do this "if it considers that the issues between the parties cannot properly be resolved in any other way" (para 3.1).
Where the relationship has broken down so completely that the estate cannot be administered, the High Court can act under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. It can appoint a substitute in place of any of the executors, or, where there are two or more, end the appointment of one or more of them but not all. A co-executor can make the application.
The bar is not low. In Kershaw v Micklethwaite [2010] EWHC 506 (Ch) — a case about a breakdown between executors and a beneficiary — the judge said he did not think that "friction or hostility between an executor and a beneficiary will, of itself, be a good reason for removing the executor", but that a breakdown in relations is a factor "if it is obstructing the administration of the estate, or even sometimes if it is capable of doing so". Our guides to removing a co-executor and removing an executor through the court cover the procedure, the court fee and who pays the costs.
If the disagreement is really about whether the will is valid — for example, one executor doubts the person had capacity to make it — that is a different kind of claim; see our guide to contesting a will.
Sources
Related guides