The decision in Royal Holloway and Bedford New College v QLaw Legal Services Limited [2026] EWHC 2090 (SCCO) provides an important reminder that professional executors cannot assume entitlement to remuneration simply because a testator was told that charges would be made. The Senior Courts Costs Office reaffirmed the strict requirements governing executor remuneration and highlighted the limited circumstances in which solicitors acting as executors can recover professional fees.
Background
The case concerned the estate of Margaret Anne Selby, whose residuary beneficiary was Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. Her will appointed two executors:
- Patricia Malcher, a friend of the deceased; and
- the directors of QLaw Legal Services Limited, trading as Quantick Daley Solicitors.
Following Ms Selby’s death, Mr Neil Quantick, the sole director of QLaw, acted as joint executor and administered the estate. Between January and July 2024, QLaw rendered bills totalling £53,187.60 for professional executor services. The residuary beneficiary subsequently applied under section 71(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 for an assessment of those bills in September 2025.
A preliminary issue was ordered to determine whether QLaw had any entitlement to charge the estate at all. The firm had prepared Ms Selby’s will prior to her death.
The Legal Issue
The will contained no charging clause authorising the executors to charge professional fees.
QLaw therefore sought to rely on section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000, which permits a professional trustee or personal representative to receive reasonable remuneration if every other trustee agrees in writing to that remuneration. As personal representatives are treated similarly to trustees under the Act, the provision can apply to executors.
The central question was therefore whether:
- discussions with the deceased before execution of the will; or
- subsequent correspondence with the co-executor,
amounted to sufficient authority for QLaw to charge professional executor fees.
QLaw’s Argument
QLaw relied on evidence that, during the will drafting process, she had been informed in correspondence, that the deceased that professional executors would charge for their services and that the deceased had indicated she was content with that arrangement.
It also relied on later correspondence in which the lay co-executor acknowledged receiving details of QLaw’s costs information. QLaw argued that these communications demonstrated the necessary authorisation to charge.
The Decision
Costs Judge Leonard rejected the Defnedant’s arguments.
The court held that discussions during the will drafting process could not create an entitlement to remuneration where the will itself contained no charging clause. The executors derived their authority from the will, not from pre will correspondence or discussions with the deceased. Had the deceased intended professional executors to charge, that intention should have been reflected expressly in the will.
The judge further held that the co-executor’s de facto acquiescence to the Defendant’s rendering charges to Ms Selby’s estate for such services could not constitute agreement sufficient to satisfy section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000. Her request for an estimate was no more than evidence of that de facto acquiescence. Accordingly, QLaw had no right to charge the estate for Mr Quantick’s services as a professional executor.
Reliance on Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey
A significant aspect of the judgment was its reliance on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey [2024] EWCA Civ 303. That case similarly involved solicitor executors seeking remuneration in the absence of a charging clause. The Court of Appeal emphasised that section 29 requires written agreement from all executors and that the policy behind the legislation is to preserve transparency and prevent trustees from profiting without clear authority.
Costs Judge Leonard considered the factual similarities striking and applied the same principles to reject QLaw’s claim.
Practical Implications for Private Client Practitioners
This decision serves as a warning to solicitors and professional executors:
- Include a Charging Clause
If a professional executor is intended to charge for acting, the safest course remains to include a clear and properly drafted charging clause within the will itself. Reliance on conversations, attendance notes or client understanding is unlikely to suffice. This of course can only apply where the executor’s firm has been involved in the will drafting process.
- Written Agreement Means Written Agreement
Where section 29(2) is relied upon, practitioners should obtain clear written consent from every co-executor. Informal communications, silence, acquiescence or acceptance of invoices may not satisfy the statutory requirement.
- Transparency Is Critical
The judgment reinforces the policy objective identified in Brealey: beneficiaries and co-executors must be able to identify clearly the basis upon which professional remuneration is claimed.
- Costs Assessment Risks Remain Significant
Where there is uncertainty regarding entitlement to charge, the issue may arise before any assessment of reasonableness. A professional executor may find that the question is not whether the fees are reasonable, but whether any fees are recoverable at all.
Conclusion
The case is another strong affirmation of the long standing principle that executors are generally not entitled to remuneration unless there is clear authority permitting it. The court adopted a strict approach to section 29 of the Trustee Act 2000 and confirmed that neither a testator’s informal understanding nor a co-executor’s passive acceptance of fees can replace the need for express authority.
For private client practitioners, the message is simple: if professional executors are expected to charge, make sure the entitlement is clearly documented in the will or supported by unequivocal written agreement from all co-executors. Failure to do so may leave even substantial fees irrecoverable