Gavriel & Anor v Davis [2019] EWHC 2446 (Ch) (30 August 2019)

Gavriel & Anor v Davis [2019] EWHC 2446 (Ch) (30 August 2019)

There was no agreement or understanding permitting the defendant to charge fees, and the evidence of such an agreement was found to be fanciful. The court declined to exercise its equitable discretion to allow remuneration due to the unsatisfactory nature of the defendant's evidence. The self-dealing rule was not displaced, and no estoppel or unjust enrichment basis was established.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2446 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Gavriel; Claimant: Tryfon Gavriel; Defendant: Hope Davis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (cpr Part 64) / Disposal Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in favour of the claimants; defendant not entitled to remuneration.
Legal Topics
Executor Remuneration, Charging Clause, Self Dealing Rule, Equitable Discretion, Estoppel by Convention, Unjust Enrichment
Probate Trusts and Estates Executor Remuneration Charging Clause Self Dealing Rule Equitable Discretion Estoppel by Convention Unjust Enrichment

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Gavriel

Claimant

Tryfon Gavriel

Claimant

Hope Davis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (cpr Part 64) / Disposal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the executor is entitled to remuneration in the absence of a charging clause or written agreement
  2. 2 Whether there was an agreement or understanding permitting the executor to charge fees
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its equitable discretion to allow remuneration

Ratio Decidendi

There was no agreement or understanding permitting the defendant to charge fees, and the evidence of such an agreement was found to be fanciful. The court declined to exercise its equitable discretion to allow remuneration due to the unsatisfactory nature of the defendant's evidence. The self-dealing rule was not displaced, and no estoppel or unjust enrichment basis was established.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in favour of the claimants; defendant not entitled to remuneration.

Orders

  • No remuneration to be paid to the defendant for executor services.
  • No adjustment to be made regarding HMRC penalty or interest charges.