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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll