Karen Lane v Susan Dorothy Lane & Ors

Karen Lane v Susan Dorothy Lane & Ors

Susan should pay Karen’s costs of the Removal Claim personally, as her conduct in administering the estate justified removal and her resistance was unreasonable. Susan is not entitled to indemnity from the estate for her own costs of the Removal Claim. The Construction Claim falls within Buckton category (2); Susan’s costs in defending the construction issue were properly incurred as executrix, so both parties’ costs of the Construction Claim are to be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis.

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
04 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts—estate Administration / Costs Ruling Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs of Removal Claim to be paid by Susan personally; costs of Construction Claim to be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis; interim payment ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs of Litigation, Removal of Executor, Construction of Will, Right of Indemnity, Ademption
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Costs of Litigation Removal of Executor Construction of Will Right of Indemnity Ademption

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/trusts—estate Administration / Costs Ruling Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs of the Construction and Removal Claims should be borne personally by Susan or out of the estate
  2. 2 Whether Susan is entitled to indemnity from the estate for her costs
  3. 3 Proper classification of the Construction Claim under Buckton categories

Ratio Decidendi

Susan should pay Karen’s costs of the Removal Claim personally, as her conduct in administering the estate justified removal and her resistance was unreasonable. Susan is not entitled to indemnity from the estate for her own costs of the Removal Claim. The Construction Claim falls within Buckton category (2); Susan’s costs in defending the construction issue were properly incurred as executrix, so both parties’ costs of the Construction Claim are to be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Costs of Removal Claim to be paid by Susan personally; costs of Construction Claim to be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis; interim payment ordered.

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 a proper expense of the estate.
  • Susan to bear her own costs of the Removal Claim and not to indemnify herself out of the estate.