National Westminster Bank v Lucas

National Westminster Bank v Lucas

The Trust's applications and conduct were unreasonably hostile, misconceived, and increased costs; therefore, indemnity costs orders against the Trust are just and appropriate. In adversarial trust litigation, costs should follow the event, and the Trust must pay the Bank's and Personal Injury Claimants' costs (80% for the Bank, 100% for the Personal Injury Claimants) on the indemnity basis. The Trust and other beneficiaries are not entitled to recover their costs from the estate due to their unreasonable conduct.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: National Westminster Bank; Respondent/defendant: Luke Lucas; Respondent/defendant: Roger Bodley; Respondent/defendant: PI (Personal Injury Claimants); 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
Probate/trusts (estate Administration) / Post Judgment (consequential Matters, Costs Ruling)
Outcome
Costs orders made against the Trust on the indemnity basis; applications for costs by the Trust and other beneficiaries dismissed; no stay granted.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Executor Removal, Scheme Approval, Indemnity Costs, Adversarial Litigation, Trustee Duties
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Costs Orders Executor Removal Scheme Approval Indemnity Costs Adversarial Litigation Trustee Duties

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 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

PI (Personal Injury Claimants)

Respondent/defendant

Denise Coles

Respondent/defendant

Amanda McKenna

Respondent/defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Respondent/defendant

BBC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts (estate Administration) / Post Judgment (consequential Matters, Costs Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trust should pay indemnity costs for its failed application to remove the Bank as executor
  2. 2 Whether the Trust should pay costs for its opposition to the Bank's application for approval of the Scheme
  3. 3 Appropriate basis and apportionment of costs between parties in adversarial trust litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Trust's applications and conduct were unreasonably hostile, misconceived, and increased costs; therefore, indemnity costs orders against the Trust are just and appropriate. In adversarial trust litigation, costs should follow the event, and the Trust must pay the Bank's and Personal Injury Claimants' costs (80% for the Bank, 100% for the Personal Injury Claimants) on the indemnity basis. The Trust and other beneficiaries are not entitled to recover their costs from the estate due to their unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made against the Trust on the indemnity basis; applications for costs by the Trust and other beneficiaries dismissed; no stay granted.

Orders

  • Trust to pay Bank 80% of its costs of the Scheme application on the indemnity basis.
  • Trust to pay Personal Injury Claimants' full costs of the Scheme application on the indemnity basis.