Fullard v Kershaw & Ors (Re Estate of Richard Stephen Fullard) (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 2189 (Ch) (24 March 2022)

Fullard v Kershaw & Ors (Re Estate of Richard Stephen Fullard) (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 2189 (Ch) (24 March 2022)

Claimant is the successful party and should have his costs; defendants' conduct in contesting claim and submitting voluminous evidence was unreasonable; particulars of claim were overly aggressive, justifying a 10% reduction in claimant's costs; defendants must pay 90% of claimant's costs on indemnity basis and bear their own costs without recourse to estate indemnity.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2189 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: John Richard Fullard; First Defendant: David Graham Kershaw; Second Defendant: Lenka Robertson; Third Defendant: Jill Chadwick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (removal of Executors) / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Resolution
Outcome
Defendants to pay 90% of claimant's costs on indemnity basis; defendants to bear their own costs without recourse to estate; 10% of claimant's costs to be paid from estate.
Legal Topics
Removal of Executors, Costs in Estate Litigation, Conflict of Interest, Breakdown in Executor Relationships
Probate Trusts Property Removal of Executors Costs in Estate Litigation Conflict of Interest Breakdown in Executor Relationships

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Richard Fullard

Claimant

David Graham Kershaw

First Defendant

Lenka Robertson

Second Defendant

Jill Chadwick

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (removal of Executors) / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Resolution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs following removal of executors
  2. 2 Whether defendants' conduct justifies departure from general rule on costs
  3. 3 Whether costs should be paid from the estate or personally by defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant is the successful party and should have his costs; defendants' conduct in contesting claim and submitting voluminous evidence was unreasonable; particulars of claim were overly aggressive, justifying a 10% reduction in claimant's costs; defendants must pay 90% of claimant's costs on indemnity basis and bear their own costs without recourse to estate indemnity.

Court Disposition

Defendants to pay 90% of claimant's costs on indemnity basis; defendants to bear their own costs without recourse to estate; 10% of claimant's costs to be paid from estate.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay 90% of claimant's costs on indemnity basis.
  • Defendants to bear their own costs without recourse to estate.