Gaskin v Chorus Law Ltd & Anor

Gaskin v Chorus Law Ltd & Anor

The claimant was justified in bringing the claim against D1 and D2 due to their joint responsibility for delay in the administration of the estate. The pre-action correspondence was sufficiently compliant. After discovery of the 1974 will, costs should be apportioned to reflect the change in circumstances and the parties' conduct. The claimant was the successful party on the costs issue, and the orders reflect the respective responsibilities and outcomes at each phase.

Parties
Claimant: Trevor Montrose Gaskin; First Defendant: Chorus Law Limited; Second Defendant: Marquita Yvonne Murphy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Probate/administration of Estate / Costs Ruling After Dismissal of Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed; costs apportioned as per judgment
Legal Topics
Removal of Personal Representative, Costs, Intestacy, Discovery of Will, Occupation Rent
Probate Civil Procedure Removal of Personal Representative Costs Intestacy Discovery of Will Occupation Rent

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Montrose Gaskin

Claimant

Chorus Law Limited

First Defendant

Marquita Yvonne Murphy

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/administration of Estate / Costs Ruling After Dismissal of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was justified in bringing a claim for removal of personal representatives
  2. 2 Responsibility for delay in administration of estate
  3. 3 Entitlement to occupation rent from estate property

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was justified in bringing the claim against D1 and D2 due to their joint responsibility for delay in the administration of the estate. The pre-action correspondence was sufficiently compliant. After discovery of the 1974 will, costs should be apportioned to reflect the change in circumstances and the parties' conduct. The claimant was the successful party on the costs issue, and the orders reflect the respective responsibilities and outcomes at each phase.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; costs apportioned as per judgment

Orders

  • From issue of claim to discovery of 1974 will: D1 and D2 each to pay 50% of claimant’s costs
  • From discovery of 1974 will to removal of D1 as administrator: D1 to pay 50% of each of claimant’s and D2’s costs; 50% of claimant’s and D2’s costs to be paid from the estate