National Westminster Bank v Lucas [2014] EWHC 1683 (Ch) (01 April 2014)

National Westminster Bank v Lucas [2014] EWHC 1683 (Ch) (01 April 2014)

The Trust's applications and opposition were unreasonable and outside the norms of proper conduct in estate litigation. The litigation was adversarial (Buckton category 3), not a neutral application for guidance. Costs should follow the event, and indemnity costs are justified against the Trust for both the failed removal application and opposition to the Scheme. The Bank is entitled to 80% of its costs from the Trust (reflecting additional costs caused by the Trust's opposition), and the Personal Injury Claimants are entitled to all their costs from the Trust. The Trust and other beneficiaries are not entitled to their costs out of the estate. No stay of the orders is justified.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1683 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: National Westminster Bank; Respondent/defendant: Luke Lucas; Respondent/defendant: Roger Bodley; Respondent/defendant: Denise Coles; Respondent/defendant: Amanda McKenna; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Health; Respondent/defendant: BBC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Estate Administration / Trust Litigation / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing on Costs
Outcome
Costs orders made against the Trust; applications for stay and for Trust/beneficiaries' costs out of estate refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Executor Removal, Scheme Approval, Indemnity Costs, Trust Litigation Categories
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Costs Orders Executor Removal Scheme Approval Indemnity Costs Trust Litigation Categories

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Westminster Bank

Applicant/claimant

Luke Lucas

Respondent/defendant

Roger Bodley

Respondent/defendant

Denise Coles

Respondent/defendant

Amanda McKenna

Respondent/defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Respondent/defendant

BBC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Estate Administration / Trust Litigation / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trust should pay costs of its failed application to remove the Bank as executor
  2. 2 Whether the Trust should pay costs of its opposition to the Bank's application for approval of the Scheme
  3. 3 Proper categorisation of trust litigation for costs purposes under Re Buckton

Ratio Decidendi

The Trust's applications and opposition were unreasonable and outside the norms of proper conduct in estate litigation. The litigation was adversarial (Buckton category 3), not a neutral application for guidance. Costs should follow the event, and indemnity costs are justified against the Trust for both the failed removal application and opposition to the Scheme. The Bank is entitled to 80% of its costs from the Trust (reflecting additional costs caused by the Trust's opposition), and the Personal Injury Claimants are entitled to all their costs from the Trust. The Trust and other beneficiaries are not entitled to their costs out of the estate. No stay of the orders is justified.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made against the Trust; applications for stay and for Trust/beneficiaries' costs out of estate refused.

Orders

  • Trust to pay Bank's costs of the removal application on the indemnity basis.
  • Trust to pay 80% of Bank's costs of the Scheme approval application on the indemnity basis; remaining 20% to be dealt with under s.284 Insolvency Act 1986.