Nasloom Aslam v Maria Seeley & Anor

Nasloom Aslam v Maria Seeley & Anor

The claimant was entitled to recover her costs of the removal application from the estate on the indemnity basis, as the proceedings were brought for the benefit of the estate and there was no improper or unreasonable conduct by the claimant. The first defendant's conduct, while problematic, did not justify a personal costs order against her. The second defendant was entitled to her costs up to June 2024 from the estate, but not for costs incurred thereafter in pursuing the first defendant personally.

Parties
Claimant: Nasloom Aslam; First Defendant: Maria Seeley; Second Defendant: Sonal Madan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts Application to Remove Personal Representative / Costs Judgment Following Removal and Appointment of New Personal Representative
Outcome
Costs judgment: claimant's and second defendant's costs to be paid out of the estate; no personal costs order against the first defendant.
Legal Topics
Removal of Personal Representative, Costs Orders, Trustee Indemnity, Conduct of Beneficiaries, Mental Capacity in Litigation
Probate Trusts Civil Procedure Removal of Personal Representative Costs Orders Trustee Indemnity Conduct of Beneficiaries Mental Capacity in Litigation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasloom Aslam

Claimant

Maria Seeley

First Defendant

Sonal Madan

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts Application to Remove Personal Representative / Costs Judgment Following Removal and Appointment of New Personal Representative

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to recover her costs of the removal application from the estate
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant should bear any costs personally due to her conduct
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant's costs should be paid from the estate or by the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was entitled to recover her costs of the removal application from the estate on the indemnity basis, as the proceedings were brought for the benefit of the estate and there was no improper or unreasonable conduct by the claimant. The first defendant's conduct, while problematic, did not justify a personal costs order against her. The second defendant was entitled to her costs up to June 2024 from the estate, but not for costs incurred thereafter in pursuing the first defendant personally.

Court Disposition

Costs judgment: claimant's and second defendant's costs to be paid out of the estate; no personal costs order against the first defendant.

Orders

  • Claimant's costs summarily assessed at £25,000 inclusive of VAT to be paid from the estate.
  • Second defendant's costs summarily assessed at £7,200 inclusive of VAT to be paid from the estate.