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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll