Lane v Lane & Ors [2024] EWHC 752 (Ch) (28 March 2024)

Lane v Lane & Ors [2024] EWHC 752 (Ch) (28 March 2024)

Susan should pay Karen's costs of the Removal Claim personally, as her conduct as executrix justified removal and her defence of the claim was not properly incurred; the costs of the Construction Claim should be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis, as Susan's participation was reasonable and necessary for the administration of the estate.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 752 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Karen Lane (as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Lane (deceased)); First Defendant: Susan Dorothy Lane (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Monica Lane (deceased)); Second Defendant: Daniel Lane; Third Defendant: Georgia Lane (As Beneficiary of the Estate of Monica Lane (deceased))
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Probate/trust Dispute / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Partly in favour of Claimant (Karen Lane) on costs; mixed order as to costs of claims.
Legal Topics
Costs of Litigation, Removal of Executor, Construction of Will, Right of Indemnity, Ademption, Administration of Estates
Trusts and Estates Probate Civil Procedure Costs of Litigation Removal of Executor Construction of Will Right of Indemnity Ademption +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Lane (as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Lane (deceased))

Claimant

Susan Dorothy Lane (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Monica Lane (deceased))

First Defendant

Daniel Lane

Second Defendant

Georgia Lane (As Beneficiary of the Estate of Monica Lane (deceased))

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trust Dispute / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs of the Construction Claim and Removal Claim should be borne by the estate or personally by the executrix, Susan
  2. 2 Whether Susan acted properly as executrix in defending the claims and is entitled to indemnity from the estate for her costs

Ratio Decidendi

Susan should pay Karen's costs of the Removal Claim personally, as her conduct as executrix justified removal and her defence of the claim was not properly incurred; the costs of the Construction Claim should be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis, as Susan's participation was reasonable and necessary for the administration of the estate.

Court Disposition

Partly in favour of Claimant (Karen Lane) on costs; mixed order as to costs of claims.

Orders

  • Susan to pay Karen's costs of the Removal Claim on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed; any unpaid sums to be deducted from Susan's share of the estate, and if insufficient, as an expense of the estate.
  • Susan to bear her own costs of the Removal Claim and not be indemnified from the estate.