One of my practice areas is ‘duties’ and ‘powers’ of executors and trustees, and in early 2023 I am writing an essay for the Diploma in Art Law course at the Institute of Art & Law about, ‘Duties and Powers of Trustees of Art and Cultural Heritage Assets.’ (https://ial.uk.com/). This connects with inter-related issues about: restitution; de-accessioning (including art loans); and repatriation (which is the module I am currently undertaking). An issue which I was recently asked about is the effect of a ‘caveat’ in a probate claim. The following is summary of principles. An executor is not under a duty to administer the estate until after a grant of probate has been obtained, s.25(a) AEA 1925. ‘Where an executor is appointed by a will, he derives title from the will, and the property of the deceased vests in him from the moment of the testator’s [T’s] death, so that probate is said to have relation back to the time of [T’s] death. Thus, while an executor cannot rely on his title in any court without producing the grant of probate, that grant is merely the authenticated evidence of his title. … Because an executor’s title is derived from the will he may, before he proves the will, do almost all the acts which are an incident of his office, except some which relate to litigation.’ (Tristram & Cootes, para 5-04). The caveat will stop someone from obtaining a grant and administering the estate while those concerns are being investigated. This will then allow the beneficiaries (the persons receiving assets) to take time to digest what has happened, to receive and consider legal advice, and to make investigations. As a matter of prudence, an Executor who applies estate monies for any litigation purpose before a grant of probate is obtained, can and should apply for directions, otherwise if he has acted in excess of his powers or in breach of his overriding fiduciary duty to preserve the estate, then a personal claim could be made against him for equitable compensation to be paid to the estate, and he may lose his indemnity. The litmus test of whether an executor can do anything before obtaining a grant of probate is whether the act in question is ‘incidental’ to his office as a PR. Under the AEA 1925, s.25, an executor’s duty to administer an estate does not arise until after probate has been granted. Therefore, paying monies to a solicitor to prove the executor’s title, i.e. by setting aside the caveat and obtaining a grant, cannot be ‘incidental’, because the duty to administer has not arisen. However, this is nothing more than a logical argument, as I can find no authority to support the legal proposition.