Executor Delays and Charity Legacies: Lessons from Dorothy House v Helme

For those working in legacy management, receiving notification of a charitable bequest can often feel like a waiting game. But how long is too long to wait? And what recourse do charities have when an estate is being poorly administered?

A recent court decision offers important guidance for charity professionals dealing with delayed estates, conflicts of interest, and executor inaction.

In Dorothy House, Julia’s House Limited v Anne Elizabeth Helme, Daniel Jones [2026] EWHC 75 (Ch) two charities successfully applied to have the executors removed from office. The case illustrates what can go wrong when those responsible for administering an estate fail to act in beneficiaries’ best interests, and the remedies available to charities in such circumstances.

Why this case matters for charities receiving legacies

Charities increasingly rely on legacy income, yet they often have limited visibility over how estates are administered. Delays, poor communication and undisclosed conflicts can materially affect the value of a gift and a charity’s ability to plan ahead.

This case is a reminder that whilst charities do not control estate administration, there are options available where things go wrong.

Dorothy House v Helme: what went wrong in the estate administration

Prolonged delays in probate and asset sales

The testator died in December 2017, leaving an estate valued at approximately £4.7 million. Two executors were appointed: a solicitor and a family member. The charities, Dorothy House and Julia’s House Limited, were named as residuary beneficiaries.

However, administration of the estate was significantly delayed. The charities were not notified of their entitlement for nearly three years, and probate was not obtained until approximately five years after the death.

A farm worth around £2 million, which was a major part of the estate, was not even put up for sale until 2023, further delaying progress and exposing the estate to potential loss in value.

Conflicts of interest involving executors and family members

Matters worsened in 2024 when a relative of one of the executors expressed interest in purchasing the farm. The sale was delayed, allowing this relative time to raise funds, with no other prospective buyers being considered.

The solicitors involved also agreed to act for both parties to the transaction. This was a clear conflict of interest that was not disclosed to the charities until October 2025.

Completing a sale after proceedings were issued

When the charities issued proceedings in December 2025, seeking removal of the executors and protection of the estate assets, the executors responded by completing the farm sale on the very same day.

The court found that the estate had been poorly administered and that the executors had failed to act in the estate’s best interests.

They were removed and replaced with an independent professional administrator. Significantly, the court also made an indemnity costs order against them personally—a clear indication that their conduct was considered seriously unreasonable.

Can executors delay telling charities about a legacy?

No automatic right to be told

This case also confirms an important point: executors and administrators are under no strict legal obligation to notify a charity that it has been named as a beneficiary. This applies whether the gift is a pecuniary legacy or a share of residue.

The rationale is that, until liabilities and expenses are ascertained, the amount available for distribution remains uncertain. The law does not impose a duty to notify beneficiaries at any particular stage—even once the position becomes clearer.

Why silence can still damage executors’ credibility

In Dorothy House vs Helme, this principle was applied notwithstanding that a family member of the executor stood to benefit from the delay.

Whilst this may appear inequitable, the courts treat it as settled law. That said, best practice remains for personal representatives to notify beneficiaries at an early stage.

Where problems arise—such as delays, conflicts of interest, or mismanagement—a failure to communicate can undermine credibility and weigh against personal representatives in any subsequent proceedings.

Practical guidance for charity legacy teams

Monitor probate records and death notices

There is no legal requirement for personal representatives to inform your charity of a legacy. Therefore, proactive monitoring is essential. Tracking known supporters and reviewing public probate records can help identify legacies that might otherwise be missed.

Treat prolonged silence as a warning sign

Whilst a lack of communication is not unlawful, combined with delays in administration it may indicate problems warranting further investigation.

Be alert to conflicts of interest

Personal representatives with family interests in estate assets present an obvious risk that merits close attention.

Litigation can be effective

Where conduct is sufficiently unreasonable, charities may recover costs on an indemnity basis—reducing the financial risk of challenging poor administration.

Engage early

Raising concerns promptly strengthens your position and helps protect your charity’s interests.

How we can help

If your charity is experiencing prolonged delays, poor communication, or concerns about how an estate is being administered, early advice can help protect the value of a legacy and clarify your options.

Our trust and estate disputes team regularly advises charities on legacy disputes, executor conduct and estate administration issues, and can support you in assessing next steps.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to address the circumstances of any individual or entity, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for specific advice from a qualified solicitor. The information reflects the legal position as at the date specified and may be subject to change. If you require advice on a specific matter, please contact us directly.