Raymond Saul & Co (A Firm) v Holden & Anor

Raymond Saul & Co (A Firm) v Holden & Anor

Raymond Saul & Co. acted adversarially rather than neutrally in litigation between rival claimants to an estate. As unsuccessful parties, they must bear the Trustee's costs personally, with no recourse to the estates. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the general rule. Mr. Hemming's estate played no substantive part and should not bear any costs.

Parties
Claimant: Raymond Saul & Co.; First Defendant (as Personal Representative of Bernard Leslie Hemming Deceased): Jolyon Holden; Second Defendant (as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Bernard Leslie Hemming): Louise Mary Britten
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts (costs Determination) / Post Judgment (costs Ruling)
Outcome
Trustee's costs to be paid by Raymond Saul & Co., assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, with no recourse to the estates of Bertha or Bernard Hemming.
Legal Topics
Costs, Executor's Duties, Trustee's Duties, Adversarial Litigation, Neutrality of Executors/trustees
Probate Trusts and Estates Bankruptcy Costs Executor's Duties Trustee's Duties Adversarial Litigation Neutrality of Executors/trustees

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Saul & Co.

Claimant

Jolyon Holden

First Defendant (as Personal Representative of Bernard Leslie Hemming Deceased)

Louise Mary Britten

Second Defendant (as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Bernard Leslie Hemming)

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts (costs Determination) / Post Judgment (costs Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of proceedings regarding entitlement to the residuary estate of Bertha Hemming?
  2. 2 Whether Raymond Saul & Co. acted appropriately in pursuing the litigation in an adversarial manner rather than neutrally.
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Hemming's estate should bear any part of the Trustee's costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Raymond Saul & Co. acted adversarially rather than neutrally in litigation between rival claimants to an estate. As unsuccessful parties, they must bear the Trustee's costs personally, with no recourse to the estates. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the general rule. Mr. Hemming's estate played no substantive part and should not bear any costs.

Court Disposition

Trustee's costs to be paid by Raymond Saul & Co., assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, with no recourse to the estates of Bertha or Bernard Hemming.

Orders

  • Raymond Saul & Co. to pay the Trustee's costs.
  • No right of recourse to funds in the estates of Bertha or Bernard Hemming for payment of these costs.