Jones v Longley & Ors

Jones v Longley & Ors

The Claimant acted reasonably and in the best interests of the estate in bringing the claim to remove the First Defendant, as the administration was deadlocked. The First Defendant acted unreasonably in defending the claim and in his conduct of the litigation. Therefore, the First Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs on the standard basis, with any unrecovered costs to be paid from the estate on the indemnity basis. The Second and Third Defendants are not liable for costs, nor are they awarded costs.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Malcolm Jones; First Defendant: David Charles Longley; Second Defendant: Richard Longley; Third Defendant: Jane Eagers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts (removal of Executor) / Costs Ruling After Removal Order
Outcome
Costs order in favour of Claimant against First Defendant; any unrecovered costs to be paid from the estate on the indemnity basis; no order as to costs for Second and Third Defendants.
Legal Topics
Removal of Executor, Costs in Estate Litigation, Personal Representative Duties
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Removal of Executor Costs in Estate Litigation Personal Representative 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Malcolm Jones

Claimant

David Charles Longley

First Defendant

Richard Longley

Second Defendant

Jane Eagers

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts (removal of Executor) / Costs Ruling After Removal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant or Defendants acted unreasonably in bringing or defending the claim for removal of executor
  2. 2 Whether costs should be paid by the estate or by a party personally
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the parties justified indemnity or standard costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant acted reasonably and in the best interests of the estate in bringing the claim to remove the First Defendant, as the administration was deadlocked. The First Defendant acted unreasonably in defending the claim and in his conduct of the litigation. Therefore, the First Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs on the standard basis, with any unrecovered costs to be paid from the estate on the indemnity basis. The Second and Third Defendants are not liable for costs, nor are they awarded costs.

Court Disposition

Costs order in favour of Claimant against First Defendant; any unrecovered costs to be paid from the estate on the indemnity basis; no order as to costs for Second and Third Defendants.

Orders

  • First Defendant to pay Claimant’s costs of the claim on the standard basis, if not agreed.
  • Claimant entitled to recover any unrecovered costs from the estate on the indemnity basis.