Charity Case Law Update | Winter 2025/2026

British Camelids Ltd v Brooke Hospital for Animals & Others

Charitable legacies and successor organisations

The case of British Camelids Ltd v Brooke Hospital for Animals & Others [2025] EWHC 2461 (Ch) considers how charitable gifts should be construed where the named charities have changed name or legal structure since the will was executed. The decision continues to be relied upon by charities and executors dealing with older wills or where the charity information is incorrect.

Background to the case

Mrs Candia Midworth made her will in September 1994, leaving the residue of her £1.9m estate equally between several named animal charities including:

• British Camelids
• Born Free Foundation, for its Zoo Check Project
• Libearty Campaign of the World Society, for the Protection of Animals (now World Animal Protection),
• British Union, for the Abolition of Vivisection (now Cruelty Free International)
• Burstow Wildlife Sanctuary.

The will referred to those charities “that exist at the date of my death”.

In 1994, the Brooke, Born Free Foundation and World Society for the Protection of Animals were all unincorporated charities.

Mrs Midworth died in April 2022. By that time, Brooke, the Born Free Foundation and World Society for the Protection of Animals had become incorporated, and they had transferred funds to their incorporated entitles which had new charity numbers. Born Free continued its Zoo Check Project and World Animal Protection continued its Libearty project. Burstow Wildlife Sanctuary no longer existed in any form at that date.

British Camelids Limited issued proceedings and argued that the “original charities” of Brooke, Born Free and World Society for the Protection of Animals no longer “existed” for the purposes of the clause so their share of the estate should be split between British Camelids and Cruelty Free International.

Legal principles

When construing a will, the court’s task is to identify and give effect to the testator’s intention. A charitable gift will not fail merely because the named charity has changed name, merged, or restructured, provided the intended beneficiary can still be identified. The court will focus on continuity of charitable purpose rather than technical changes in corporate form.

The court’s reasoning and outcome

The court rejected a strict or purely literal construction of the will. Instead, it undertook a careful examination of the history, objects and continuity of the named charities and concluded that the testatrix’s intention was to benefit the relevant charitable purposes, rather than to make gifts dependent on the continued existence of a particular legal entity or organisational label. Changes in name, structure or corporate form were therefore not determinative.

The court held that the charitable gifts to those charities which had been incorrectly named or no longer had the same legal structure did not fail.

The court ruled that where named charities had merged, changed their legal form or ceased to exist, the gifts were capable of taking effect in favour of successor organisations or other charities that continued, in substance, the same charitable purposes originally intended by the testatrix.

Key considerations for charities

• Continuity of charitable purpose is paramount: a charitable gift will only fail if the underlying purposes of the charity no longer exist or cannot be carried out.
• Evidence of organisational continuity matters: name changes, restructurings and mergers do not defeat a gift where the charitable work continues.
• Construction disputes carry real costs: clear drafting and early investigation of charitable succession can avoid expensive litigation.

What this means for charities

The courts clearly want to uphold gifts to charities in wills. So, this decision is good news for those charities that may have merged or have changed legal structure.

Charities should retain clear records of constitutional changes and engage early with executors to protect legacy income from challenge.

Fernandez v Fernandez [2025] EWHC 2530 (Ch) and Shufflebotham & Milner v Shuff-Wentzel [2025] EWHC 3321 (Ch)

Executor removal: when the court removes a personal representative – and when it chooses a different solution

These two recent executor removal cases are helpful to consider together because they show that, even where family conflict stalls an estate administration, the court’s response is highly fact specific. In some cases, removal of the personal representative (PR) is justified; in others, the court may instead seek to stabilise administration through a more proportionate solution.

Background to the cases

Fernandez v Fernandez [2025] EWHC 2530 (Ch) concerned a family dispute in which one sibling, Julian Fernandez, had been appointed executor and trustee of a related family trust. Relations between the various siblings deteriorated significantly, leading to delay, poor communication and entrenched hostility. An application was made to the court to remove him from office on the basis that the administration could not progress effectively.

Shufflebotham & Milner v Shuff-Wentzel [2025] EWHC 3321 (Ch) involved an estate administered by three executrices. The working relationship between them broke down to deadlock. Two of the executrices applied for wholesale replacement of the executors and trustees, including removal of the remaining executrix. This provides a direct contrast to Fernandez: although deadlock was accepted, the court did not remove all parties in the way sought.

Legal principles

Applications to remove or replace personal representatives are commonly brought under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. The test is forward-looking and focuses on whether the estate can be administered effectively in the interests of the beneficiaries. Proof of misconduct or blame is not required. Costs are also a key feature: the court will consider whether proceedings are effectively “hostile” and whether costs should fall personally on the parties or be met from the estate.

The court’s reasoning and outcome

Although both cases involved entrenched conflict and stalled administration, they illustrate contrasting judicial responses depending on whether removal was the only realistic way to restore effective administration.

Fernandez

The court focused on whether the continued involvement of the executor was preventing practical and effective administration. It concluded that ongoing friction, lack of cooperation and personal hostility meant progress could not realistically be achieved, and that this was contrary to the interests of the beneficiaries.

The outcome? The executor was removed. The court also emphasised that costs should not automatically be borne by the estate where proceedings are driven by personal conflict rather than the needs of the estate.

Shufflebotham

The court accepted that genuine deadlock existed but concluded that removal of the remaining executrix was not the most proportionate solution. Instead, it examined whether targeted intervention could restore functionality without wholesale removal.

The applying executrices were permitted to step down, but the court declined to remove the remaining executrix. A professional executor and trustee were appointed to act alongside her, ensuring progress while preserving family representation. Although costs were awarded against the applicants, the court preserved their ability to rely on trustee/executor indemnity, having found that they acted honestly and reasonably in addressing a genuine impasse.

Key considerations for charities

• Removal is discretionary and depends on whether administration can realistically progress.
• Fault is not essential: entrenched hostility or deadlock may be sufficient.
• The court may prefer a proportionate solution (including professional appointment) over wholesale removal.
• Costs risk is significant in hostile proceedings, and personal costs exposure can arise.
• Even an unsuccessful removal application may be reasonable where it addresses genuine deadlock.

What this means for charities

For charities awaiting distributions, these cases highlight the importance of monitoring estates where administration has stalled due to PR conflict. Delays can erode estate value and increase costs. However, they also demonstrate that removal is not automatic and that the court may favour alternative solutions to keep administration moving. The practical message is to consider proportionate intervention, including professional involvement, and to take appropriate early legal advice before supporting or initiating executor-removal proceedings.

How we can help

If your charity is managing a legacy gift, dealing with an estate in dispute, or facing potential executor conflicts, contact our team for tailored guidance. We can help you protect charitable interests, navigate complex case law, and ensure gifts are administered effectively.