16 Sept 2020
Removal under s 21 was justified because respondent's refusal to agree to distributions created an irresolvable deadlock impeding completion of the estate administration; respondent did not oppose the removal application, and removal was expedient to allow the remaining administrators to complete distribution in beneficiaries' interests.
21 Aug 2019
Summary judgment was appropriate because the defendant had no tenable defence; the administrators' mutual mistrust and repeated inability to implement agreements caused substantial delay and impaired proper administration of the estate, and under s 21 the expedient solution for beneficiaries was removal of both administrators and appointment of an independent solicitor (Vicki M. Ammundsen).
1 Jun 2016
Given medical evidence that the respondent suffers progressive Alzheimer-like dementia and the consent of the other beneficiaries, the respondent was incapable of acting as co-executor and the Court was entitled under s 21 Administration Act 1969 to remove her and appoint the applicant as sole executor; service could be dispensed with due to incapacity and lack of useful purpose in serving her.
13 Nov 2014
Because the defendant knowingly refused or neglected to perform his duties as executor/trustee, with no issue of incapacity, it was expedient under s21 of the Administration Act 1969 to remove him as an administrator; ancillary remedies (sale, appointment of Registrar, costs) require further steps and supporting memoranda.
6 Jun 2012
The Court removed Robert Bruce McIlraith because his acceptance of administration was inconsistent with the spirit of the 2006 consent order and his removal was expedient to preserve beneficiaries' welfare and reduce family hostility; the Court refused to remove James Wallace because the testatrix validly appointed him, there was no cogent evidence of misconduct or conflict sufficient to justify removal, and the exercise of the wide discretionary jurisdiction was inappropriate on summary judgment.