Royal Holloway v QLaw: No Present Entitlement to Executor Fees [2026] EWHC 2090 (SCCO)

Solicitor & Client — 2026-08-04

The Senior Courts Costs Office held that QLaw had no present right to charge £53,187.60 for its director's services as a professional executor because the will contained no charging clause and the co-executor had not agreed in writing under section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000. The court left open a possible application for remuneration under its inherent jurisdiction.

Overview

Date: 4 August 2026

Judge: Costs Judge Leonard

Court: Senior Courts Costs Office

Citation: [2026] EWHC 2090 (SCCO)

Nature of Proceedings: Preliminary issue in a Solicitors Act 1974 assessment concerning a solicitor executor's entitlement to remuneration from an estate

Key Issues:

Whether a professional executor could charge the estate where the will contained no charging clause
Whether the co-executor had agreed in writing to remuneration for the purposes of section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000
Whether correspondence about charging and costs information was sufficient to establish the necessary written agreement
Whether the court might later exercise its inherent jurisdiction to permit remuneration

In Royal Holloway and Bedford New College v QLaw Legal Services Limited, the Senior Courts Costs Office held in 2026 that QLaw had no present right to charge an estate for its director's services as a professional executor. The will contained no charging clause and the co-executor had not agreed in writing to remuneration as required by section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000. The court did not decide whether it might later permit remuneration under its inherent jurisdiction.

---

The Facts

Margaret Anne Selby died on 20 November 2022. Her will, dated 12 March 2020, appointed her friend Patricia Malcher and the directors of Quantick Daley Solicitors as executors. Quantick Daley Solicitors was a trading name of QLaw Legal Services Limited, rather than a separate company or other independent entity. Neil Quantick, QLaw's sole director at the date of death and at the date of judgment, accepted appointment as joint executor.

The will did not contain an express charging clause permitting QLaw's directors to charge for acting as executors. Between 24 January and 26 July 2024, QLaw nevertheless rendered bills to the estate totalling £53,187.60 for Mr Quantick's services as professional executor. Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, the residuary beneficiary, applied on 5 September 2025 under section 71(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 for an assessment of those bills.

On 18 February 2026, Costs Judge Leonard ordered the bills to be assessed and directed that QLaw's entitlement to remuneration should be determined as a preliminary issue. The judgment dealt only with that entitlement, leaving open whether QLaw might ask the court to exercise its discretion to permit remuneration.

Before the will was executed, a QLaw paralegal wrote to Ms Selby on 19 December 2019 recording that professional executors would charge and that Ms Selby was content with that. After Ms Selby's death, Ms Malcher repeatedly sought information about costs. On 27 January 2023, another paralegal supplied hourly rates ranging from £350 for Mr Quantick to £135 for the paralegal and said that periodic bills would ordinarily be met from estate funds. Ms Malcher replied with thanks for the assurances and costs information.

Following the grant of probate, Mr Quantick wrote to the residuary beneficiary on 23 January 2024. He described charging on a time plus value basis, proposed a value element of 2% of the gross estate plus VAT, and anticipated that total fees would not exceed £30,000 plus VAT. One matter remaining in dispute was a value charge of £18,592.20, which was said to fall outside the charging structure given to Ms Malcher and to take the total beyond that estimate.

---

The Statutory Framework and the Court of Appeal Authority

Section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000 entitles a trustee who acts professionally, but is not a trust corporation, charitable trustee or sole trustee, to reasonable remuneration from trust funds if every other trustee has agreed in writing to that remuneration. Sections 35 and 39 apply that regime to personal representatives administering estates.

Costs Judge Leonard relied on Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey [2024] EWCA Civ 303. That case explained why Parliament required the express agreement of all trustees or personal representatives rather than creating a general default charging power. The policy seeks to balance the benefit of encouraging professionals to act with transparency, protection against abuse, and the basic principle that a trustee should not profit from the trust.

The factual resemblance to Shepherd was close. There too, the solicitors who prepared the will were appointed alongside a lay executor; the will contained no charging clause; and a solicitor executor later administered the estate. The Court of Appeal held that the firm's retainer documents and approved bills were insufficient because another appointed solicitor executor had not agreed to remuneration. His lack of involvement in the administration did not alter the statutory requirement.

---

Key Holdings

1. An Agreement Before Death Could Not Replace a Charging Clause in the Will

QLaw relied on the pre-execution correspondence recording that Ms Selby had been told that the professional executors would charge and had agreed to that. The court held that this did not confer a right to remuneration.

At its highest, the letter was hearsay evidence that Ms Selby was willing to make a will permitting professional executors to charge. The actual will did not do so. The court stated at [38]:

> “Ms Selby’s executors were appointed by her will, not by the Defendant’s letter of 19 December 2019. Had Ms Selby conferred upon her executors a right to charge for their services she would have done so by making a provision to that effect in her will, and she did not.”

The fundamental starting point, taken from Shepherd, was that subject to limited exceptions an executor appointed under a will containing no charging clause is not entitled to remuneration beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Discussions and correspondence surrounding preparation of the will could not substitute for the provision that the executed will omitted.

2. Section 29(2) Required Written Agreement, Not Acquiescence

The alternative route depended on whether Ms Malcher, the only co-executor, had agreed in writing that Mr Quantick could be remunerated for his professional services. The court found that she had not.

Costs Judge Leonard distinguished that statutory question from the contractual principles ordinarily used to establish the existence and terms of a solicitor's retainer. The claimant's submission that Ms Malcher had not given informed consent also did not determine the point because informed consent is not an express requirement of section 29(2). The question was simply whether the required written agreement existed.

Ms Malcher's requests for an estimate showed practical acceptance that QLaw intended to charge, but they did not satisfy the statute. At [42], the court held:

> “Ms Malcher’s de facto acquiescence to the Defendant’s rendering charges to Ms Selby’s estate for such services could not constitute agreement sufficient to satisfy section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000.”

The January 2023 exchange did not improve QLaw's position. QLaw sent costs information and Ms Malcher acknowledged receiving it. That was not a written agreement that Mr Quantick could be remunerated for acting as executor. Allowing QLaw to derive an implied agreement from those communications would be inconsistent with both the statutory language and its underlying purpose.

3. QLaw Had No Present Right to Charge the Estate

The result on the preliminary issue was unequivocal. At [44], Costs Judge Leonard concluded:

> “For all those reasons, my conclusion is that the Defendant has no right to charge Ms Selby’s estate for Mr Quantick’s services as professional executor.”

The ruling went to entitlement rather than the reasonableness or amount of the bills. Questions about the value charge, changes in hourly rates and the extent to which the charges exceeded the estimate did not need to be decided before resolving that threshold issue.

4. A Discretionary Application Remained Possible

The judgment did not decide whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to allow remuneration despite the absence of a contractual or statutory right. The preliminary issue had been framed more narrowly.

QLaw was left to decide whether to make such an application. The judge indicated that an application might be considered in light of an assessment of what QLaw had actually done for the estate. If no application were made, the proceedings could conclude with an order allowing no remuneration beyond reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. A directions hearing would deal with the consequences of the judgment and the steps required to conclude the assessment.

This reservation is important. The judgment establishes that QLaw had no right to charge on the materials relied upon, but it does not finally determine whether the court will permit any remuneration through its exceptional inherent jurisdiction.

---

Practical Implications

For Costs Lawyers

1. Test entitlement before assessing quantum. Where professional executor bills are challenged, the first question is whether the will contains a charging clause or the statutory requirements for remuneration are met. Detailed arguments about rates, estimates and proportionality may be secondary if there is no underlying entitlement.

2. Require the actual written agreement. Evidence that a co-executor knew about charges, requested an estimate or acknowledged costs information does not necessarily satisfy section 29(2). The document relied upon should expressly record agreement that the professional executor may be remunerated for the relevant services.

3. Separate statutory entitlement from the retainer. Ordinary contractual analysis of a solicitor's retainer does not answer the section 29(2) question. Costs lawyers should identify the capacity in which the work was done and the distinct legal basis said to authorise payment from the estate.

4. Keep discretionary remuneration distinct. A failure to establish entitlement under the will or section 29 does not automatically determine an application under the court's inherent jurisdiction. Any such claim will require separate analysis and evidence about the work actually performed.

For Litigation Practitioners

1. Draft charging clauses expressly. A testator's oral understanding or pre-execution correspondence is not a substitute for a charging clause in the executed will. If professional executors are intended to receive remuneration, the will should say so clearly.

2. Obtain written agreement before charging. Where reliance is placed on section 29(2), every other trustee or personal representative should give express written agreement to remuneration. Mere knowledge, silence or administrative cooperation creates avoidable risk.

3. Explain the executor's capacity clearly. Engagement documents should distinguish professional services performed as executor from legal services provided to executors or the estate. Ambiguity about capacity can undermine the asserted basis of charging.

4. Give transparent and consistent costs information. Although quantum was not decided, the judgment records questions about changing hourly rates, a later value charge and charges exceeding an estimate. Clear advance terms and prompt notification of changes remain essential even where entitlement is established.

---

Conclusion

Royal Holloway v QLaw Legal Services Limited confirms the strict approach to professional executor remuneration following Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey. A testator's apparent expectation that solicitors would charge could not repair the omission of a charging clause from the will. Nor could a co-executor's acquiescence, request for an estimate or acknowledgment of costs information amount to the written agreement required by section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000.

The immediate consequence was that QLaw had no right to charge the estate for Mr Quantick's professional executor services, despite bills totalling £53,187.60. The final financial outcome remains open because QLaw may seek an exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The decision nevertheless provides a clear warning: entitlement must be established expressly before professional executor charges are rendered against an estate.

---

Citation: Royal Holloway and Bedford New College v QLaw Legal Services Limited [2026] EWHC 2090 (SCCO)

Full judgment available at: National Archives

Related Specialist Support

Law Firm Costs Support: Flexible specialist capacity for litigation teams and solicitors.
Costs Budgeting and Detailed Assessment: Precedent H, dispute documents, negotiations and assessment strategy.
Costs Lawyer Support: Direct help with costs procedure, strategy, drafting and advocacy.