Sharpe v Forbath

The plaintiffs in the case of Sharpe v Forbath sought the removal of the defendant as the executor of his deceased mother's estate on the basis that he was either refusing to act or unfit to act in his office. The dispute came before the court pursuant to section 15 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, which allows for the removal of an executor under certain circumstances. The defendant, who had been granted probate in November 1999, was accused of failing to lodge a transmission application and take steps to sell the deceased's unit, which was part of the estate. The plaintiffs argued that these failures demonstrated the defendant's refusal or inability to act as executor.

The court had to decide whether the defendant's actions justified his removal as executor. Specifically, the court had to determine if the defendant's failure to lodge a transmission application and effect a sale of the unit after obtaining probate demonstrated that he was either refusing to act or unfit to act. The court also had to consider the defendant's explanation that he had delayed in applying for probate due to a dispute over the Certificate of Title to the unit, which was eventually handed over to him after probate was granted.

In dismissing the plaintiffs' application for the removal of the defendant as executor, the court found that the defendant's failure to lodge a transmission application and take steps to sell the unit did not justify his removal. The court accepted that the defendant did not require the Certificate of Title to make the application and that his delay in applying for probate was due to the dispute over the Certificate of Title. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' father had eventually handed over the Certificate of Title after the defendant obtained probate. The court concluded that the defendant's actions did not demonstrate that he was refusing to act or unfit to act as executor.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application. The plaintiffs had not succeeded in their application to have the defendant removed as executor, and the court found that the defendant's actions did not warrant his removal. The defendant's failure to lodge a transmission application and take steps to sell the unit was not sufficient to demonstrate that he was unfit to act as executor, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application.