Gaskin v Chorus Law Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 616 (Ch) (21 March 2019)

Gaskin v Chorus Law Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 616 (Ch) (21 March 2019)

Claimant was justified in bringing the claim against Chorus Law Limited due to its failure to administer the estate with due diligence; both Chorus Law Limited and Marquita Murphy were equally responsible for delays. Costs orders reflect joint responsibility and phases of litigation, with costs split between defendants and estate as appropriate.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 616 (Ch)
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
Claim Under S.50 Administration of Justice Act 1985 / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed; costs determined
Legal Topics
Removal of Personal Representatives, Costs Orders, Intestacy, Occupation Rent, Validity of Wills
Probate Trusts Civil Procedure Removal of Personal Representatives Costs Orders Intestacy Occupation Rent Validity of Wills

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Montrose Gaskin

Claimant

Chorus Law Limited

First Defendant

Marquita Yvonne Murphy

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim Under S.50 Administration of Justice Act 1985 / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant was justified in seeking removal of personal representatives
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order given discovery of will
  3. 3 Responsibility for delay in estate administration

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant was justified in bringing the claim against Chorus Law Limited due to its failure to administer the estate with due diligence; both Chorus Law Limited and Marquita Murphy were equally responsible for delays. Costs orders reflect joint responsibility and phases of litigation, with costs split between defendants and estate as appropriate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; costs determined

Orders

  • Chorus Law Limited and Marquita Murphy each to pay 50% of claimant's costs for period up to discovery of 1974 will
  • For period from discovery of will to removal of administrator, Chorus Law Limited pays 50% of each of claimant's and Marquita Murphy's costs; remaining 50% paid from estate