Griffin v Higgs & Ors

Griffin v Higgs & Ors

The Deputy Master was entitled to find Jane was the successful party as she obtained the removal of the executors and appointment of an independent administrator, and to order Con and Con’s Children to pay her costs, including for the period before they were joined, due to their opposition. The Deputy Master was entitled to deprive the executors of indemnity for costs up to their adoption of a neutral stance, but erred in depriving them of indemnity for costs reasonably incurred after they became neutral. The costs order was otherwise within the generous ambit of judicial discretion.

Parties
Claimant: Patricia Jane Griffin; First Defendant (executor): David Howard Higgs; Second Defendant (executor): Robert Ernest Leek; Third Defendant (executor): Arnold John Homer; Fourth Defendant: Constantine Folkes; Fifth Defendant: Samson John Folkes; Sixth Defendant: Cleopatra Liana Folkes; Seventh Defendant: Amy Angela Folkes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (probate/trusts) / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; costs order varied
Legal Topics
Removal of Executors, Costs Orders, Conflict of Interest, Trustee Duties
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Removal of Executors Costs Orders Conflict of Interest 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Jane Griffin

Claimant

David Howard Higgs

First Defendant (executor)

Robert Ernest Leek

Second Defendant (executor)

Arnold John Homer

Third Defendant (executor)

Constantine Folkes

Fourth Defendant

Samson John Folkes

Fifth Defendant

Cleopatra Liana Folkes

Sixth Defendant

Amy Angela Folkes

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (probate/trusts) / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in the costs order following the removal of executors
  2. 2 Whether the successful party was correctly identified for costs purposes
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the parties justified issue-based or conduct-based costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master was entitled to find Jane was the successful party as she obtained the removal of the executors and appointment of an independent administrator, and to order Con and Con’s Children to pay her costs, including for the period before they were joined, due to their opposition. The Deputy Master was entitled to deprive the executors of indemnity for costs up to their adoption of a neutral stance, but erred in depriving them of indemnity for costs reasonably incurred after they became neutral. The costs order was otherwise within the generous ambit of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; costs order varied

Orders

  • Deputy Master’s costs order upheld except as to the indemnity for executors’ costs in the Second Period, which are to be paid out of the estate to the extent not recovered from Con and Con’s Children, assessed on the indemnity basis.
  • Otherwise, appeals dismissed.