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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll