Griffin v Higgs & Ors [2018] EWHC 2498 (Ch) (03 October 2018)

Griffin v Higgs & Ors [2018] EWHC 2498 (Ch) (03 October 2018)

The Deputy Master was entitled to treat Jane as the successful party for costs purposes, as she achieved removal of the executors and appointment of an independent administrator with unfettered scope. The inter-connected nature of issues and evidence justified refusal of issue-based or conduct-based costs orders. Executors were not entitled to indemnity from the estate, having unreasonably resisted removal in the face of clear conflicts of interest. The costs order was within the proper exercise of judicial discretion and not 'wrong' in principle or application.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2498 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Patricia Jane Griffin; Defendant: David Howard Higgs; Defendant: Robert Ernest Leek; Defendant: Arnold John Homer; Defendant: Constantine Folkes; Defendant: Samson John Folkes; Defendant: Cleopatra Liana Folkes; Defendant: Amy Angela Folkes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs order upheld
Legal Topics
Removal of Executors, Costs Orders, Conflict of Interest, Discretionary Trusts
Trusts and Estates Probate Civil Procedure Removal of Executors Costs Orders Conflict of Interest Discretionary Trusts

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Jane Griffin

Claimant

David Howard Higgs

Defendant

Robert Ernest Leek

Defendant

Arnold John Homer

Defendant

Constantine Folkes

Defendant

Samson John Folkes

Defendant

Cleopatra Liana Folkes

Defendant

Amy Angela Folkes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master was wrong to treat the claimant as the successful party for costs purposes
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Master erred in failing to make issue-based or conduct-based costs orders reflecting claimant's partial success and conduct
  3. 3 Whether executors should be indemnified from the estate for their costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master was entitled to treat Jane as the successful party for costs purposes, as she achieved removal of the executors and appointment of an independent administrator with unfettered scope. The inter-connected nature of issues and evidence justified refusal of issue-based or conduct-based costs orders. Executors were not entitled to indemnity from the estate, having unreasonably resisted removal in the face of clear conflicts of interest. The costs order was within the proper exercise of judicial discretion and not 'wrong' in principle or application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs order upheld

Orders

  • Jane remains entitled to recover costs from all defendants for the First Period up to 24 February 2017, joint and several liability
  • Con and Con's Children liable for Jane's and Executors' costs for the Second Period from 24 February 2017, joint and several liability