Davies v Watkins [2012] EWCA Civ 1570 (04 December 2012)

Davies v Watkins [2012] EWCA Civ 1570 (04 December 2012)

The judge erred in treating the Beddoe application as ordinary contentious litigation and in finding that Mr Davies' conduct justified depriving him of indemnity for costs. Mr Davies acted properly in seeking directions and engaging in negotiations, and there was no improper conduct to justify a departure from the normal rule that a trustee/executor is indemnified for properly incurred costs out of the estate.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1570
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Robert Hugh Thomas Davies; Defendant/respondent: Ian Watkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trustee Indemnity for Costs, Beddoe Applications, Costs Orders in Estate Administration, Personal Representatives' Duties, Pre Action Protocol Compliance
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Trustee Indemnity for Costs Beddoe Applications Costs Orders in Estate Administration Personal Representatives' Duties Pre Action Protocol Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Hugh Thomas Davies

Claimant/appellant

Ian Watkins

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the executor (Mr Davies) was entitled to recover his costs of Beddoe proceedings from the estate
  2. 2 Whether the executor should be personally liable for the respondent's (Mr Ian Watkins) costs of certain hearings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in treating the Beddoe application as ordinary contentious litigation and in finding that Mr Davies' conduct justified depriving him of indemnity for costs. Mr Davies acted properly in seeking directions and engaging in negotiations, and there was no improper conduct to justify a departure from the normal rule that a trustee/executor is indemnified for properly incurred costs out of the estate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside paragraphs 1 and 2 of the High Court judge's order
  • Declare that the Claimant is entitled to an indemnity out of the estate for his costs of the Beddoe application up to the date of the consent order