header-logo header-logo

27 June 2019 / Chris Williams , Henrietta Mason
Issue: 7846 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate , Costs
printer mail-detail

Carrying the costs

Mussell v Patience makes it clear that litigation costs principles differ from estate costs principles, as Chris Williams & Henrietta Mason explain

  • The court cannot deprive executors out of their indemnity out of the estate for costs or expenses or liabilities unless they have acted improperly.

In a trusts dispute, where a litigation order had been made for the defendants to pay 80% of the claimant executors’ costs on the standard basis earlier in the same proceedings then, in deciding the entitlement of executors and trustees to an indemnity for costs out of the estate, the court would not deprive the executors/trustees out of such indemnity for costs, liabilities and expenses incurred on behalf of the estate unless they had been incurred improperly.

However, it would be wrong to assume that there would be any automatic ‘carry-over’ from a litigation costs order involving executors/trustees to an order concerning the right to indemnity of such executors/trustees, as litigation costs principles were different from estate costs principles.

Facts

The proceedings in the matter of Mussell v Patience [2019]

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll