Warning off for a caveat

[atticus]

Yes, it will be valid. Usually what happens after an appearance has been entered is that the Registrar will give directions for steps the parties must take to identify issues, file evidence etc so that the questions that arise in the particular case can be decided by the court.

[BlakSheep]

Thank you. I guess procedurally it is harder for the one who served the warning (properly) and to not have sight of the appearance, along with the reasons for the caveat to prepare a defence?

[BlakSheep]

Follow up question about directions from the probate registry. If the Registrar makes a formal direction that a named probate solicitor should act as an Independent Administrator must they comply or can they refuse?

[BlakSheep]

atticus hopefully you may know the answer to my follow up question above. Thank you

[atticus]

More context needed about how this came about. Did said solicitor agree that his/her name should be put forward, or are they on a court list? I suppose they can apply to the court to vary that order.

[BlakSheep]

atticus Hopefully, you may know the answer to my follow-up question above. Thank you

Thank you atticus , For context. You are aware from my previous post that there was a caveat that they renewed.

Attempts to resolve the issue informally and through mediation were rejected.

The original solicitors (I instructed to act for all beneficiaries) issued a contract listing all beneficiaries as PR/Executors. The other beneficiaries refused to sign paperwork.

I took independent legal advice and was advised to warn off as all other attempts to resolve fell. Appearances were inadequate and the Registrar directed the caveator to submit a summons. I responded to the summons and laid out the factual issue, and also presented options. My response shared a belief that vexatious blocking of an orderly and timely management of the estate (with no legal reasons presented), joint admin is not practical. I was open to acting as admin and with the original instructed solicitor managing everything (including asset sale and distribution), also presented three firms who could act as an independent administrator in the interests of the estate, but the risk would be duplication and more costs.

The registrar considered the case on paper (no hearing) and has indicated that they consider, by way of a compromise, that the originally instructed solicitors should be named as the independent administrator to act for the estate, and no one beneficiary. The order would resolve concerns (from other beneficiaries) about neutrality, since their appointment would be made directly from the Registrar’s authority rather than my say-so. If the Registrar orders the original solicitor to act, would that remove any conflict issues for the solicitors or perceptions from the beneficiaries?

[atticus]

Only the people concerned can decide what their perceptions are

[atticus]

To add to the above, from what you say, it appears that the order in question has not been made, but merely that the Registrar has indicated what he is thinking of doing, no doubt giving any party who wishes to object an opportunity to do so with reasons. If that is right, it is for the people concerned to decide whether they wish to object to such an order being made, and on what grounds.

[BlakSheep]

Only the people concerned can decide what their perceptions are

All beneficaries appear to agree on the approach to appoint the existing solicitor as an independent administrator. My question, if the registrar mandates it by way of a court order, can the solicitor/firm refuse?

[atticus]

Have they been consulted about this?

If not, why not?

See also what I said in post #20.

[BlakSheep]

Have they been consulted about this?

If not, why not?

See also what I said in post #20.

it is my understanding that they have been canvassed through direct email from the registry. No, the original solicitor was not one of group of firms put forward to act as an independent administrator.

It was the Registrar who made the recommendation; I suspect that it was to keep costs down and avoid duplication. The original instructed solicitor is well-versed with the estate and has made significant progress.

[BlakSheep]

I hope someone will know the answer but I suspect it won’t be clear cut. If the registry directs you to share an sealed order with local law society (LS) to nominate an Independent Executor (IE) but there are multiple nominations with one LS bypassing Respondent and sending a nomination directly to registry.

In the meantime I have in good faith sent the preferred LS nomination letter (email and recorded delivery) to registry and they confirm I should get IE to make the application in the normal way and probate team will send to registry to remove caveat.

But then the registry send a second email saying they have a nomination but it isn’t the preferred IE but from the nomination I have no knowledge of as they bypassed. The first registry email i forwarded to IE to prove confirmation and sent paperwork to IE to progress.

I feel this is administrative/procedural confusion from registry and I have a clear audit trail between registry and me showing ongoing comms with preferred LS and no contact with LS that bypassed.

Therefore does my nomination stand? With the 2nd nomination there is no due diligence or conflict of interest checks with any of the interested parties?

[BlakSheep]

atticus et all, any chance you can assist with my query above. Thank you.

[atticus]

Why did you involve more than 1 local Law Society?

[BlakSheep]

Why did you involve more than 1 local Law Society?

Ah there's the rub. The original LS declined, and I reverted to Registry for guidance, and they directed me to approach any LS in England and Wales - I advised them in writing that I would approach XX LS and sent them a list of the status of each approach (almost exclusively noes or DNRs). I wasn't aware this was possible because the approach to LS is usually closest to the estate. They said once I receive a nomination to send it to the registry. Unfortunately, one LS sent nomination directly to the registry without my knowledge.