A law firm acting as a joint executor of an estate was not entitled to charge over £53,000 for its services, the High Court has ruled.
In his written decision in Royal Holloway and Bedford New College v QLaw Legal Services Ltd, Costs Judge Leonard agreed with the claimant – the residuary beneficiary of the estate of Margaret Anne Selby – that a 2020 will contained no express provision for QLaw Legal Services to charge for acting as executors of the estate.
The firm had submitted a series of bills totalling over £53,0000 for the services of Neil Quantick as a professional executor.
Ms Selby died in 2022, having appointed “the directors at the date of my death in the company of Quantick Daley Solicitors” as joint executors, along with a named friend.
Prior to her death, Ms Selby had instructed the firm to assist in updating her will, with a paralegal writing to confirm she would “like for [the friend] to act as executor alongside the directors at Quanticks”.
The letter continued: “I explained that as professional executors we will charge. You confirmed you are happy with this. As solicitors we are regulated and insured.”
Following Ms Selby’s death, the firm confirmed its hourly rates in email correspondence and said fees for administering the estate “should not exceed £30,000 (+VAT)”.
The total amount billed by the firm between January and July 2024 was £53,187.60.
In September 2025, the claimant applied for an order for the assessment of the bills, arguing that in the absence of a charging clause in Ms Selby’s will and in compliance with section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000, there was no mechanism for the firm to render charges against the estate.
In defence, Quantick argued the Trustee Act 2000 requires ‘proper authorisation’, which he said had been received following the letter to Ms Selby confirming the firm would charge for its services as professional executors.
However, the court disagreed, ruling: “None of the matters referred to by Mr Quantick establish that the Defendant has a right to charge Ms Selby’s estate for Mr Quantick’s services as a professional executor.”
The retainer letter was limited to assisting Ms Selby in prepearing her will, he added, which he was “hearsay evidence” indicating Ms Selby was willing to prepare a will that would permit professional executors to charge for their services.
“In short, Ms Selby’s executors were appointed by her will, not by the Defendant’s letter of 19 December 2019″, he added. “Had Ms Selby conferred upon her executors a right to charge for their services she would have done so by making a provision to that effect in her will, and she did not.”
He concluded: “The defendant has no right to charge Ms Selby’s estate for Mr Quantick’s services as a professional executor.”
However, QLaw may still apply to the court for discretionary remuneration, Judge Leonard said, adding: “It is not out of the question that any such application should be considered in the light of an assessment of what the Defendant has actually done for the estate, but that is a matter for discussion as and when such application is made.”
A directions hearing will be made to conclude the claim.
