Long v Rodman & Ors [2019] EWHC 2451 (Ch) (02 May 2019)

Long v Rodman & Ors [2019] EWHC 2451 (Ch) (02 May 2019)

Neither side was successful; both parties adopted unreasonable and inflexible positions. The conduct of both sides was criticised. No order for costs is just. Mr Long is deprived of indemnity from the estate due to unreasonable conduct in defending the application for his removal.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2451 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: David Eric Long; First Defendant: Linda Ann Rodman; Second Defendant: Debra Fay Rodman; Third Defendant: Barbara Susan Rodman; Fourth Defendant: Roberta Rodman Hanley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts Costs Consequentials / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
No order for costs; Mr Long deprived of indemnity from the estate for his costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Removal of Personal Representative, Indemnity From Estate
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Costs Removal of Personal Representative Indemnity From Estate

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Eric Long

Claimant

Linda Ann Rodman

First Defendant

Debra Fay Rodman

Second Defendant

Barbara Susan Rodman

Third Defendant

Roberta Rodman Hanley

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts Costs Consequentials / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded inter partes in applications under s.50 Administration of Justice Act 1985 and CPR Part 64
  2. 2 Whether the personal representative (Mr Long) should be indemnified from the estate for his costs
  3. 3 Assessment of conduct and success for the purposes of costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

Neither side was successful; both parties adopted unreasonable and inflexible positions. The conduct of both sides was criticised. No order for costs is just. Mr Long is deprived of indemnity from the estate due to unreasonable conduct in defending the application for his removal.

Court Disposition

No order for costs; Mr Long deprived of indemnity from the estate for his costs.

Orders

  • No order for costs between the parties in respect of the s.50 application.
  • Mr Long is not entitled to indemnity from the estate for his costs of the s.50 application.