Smith & Ors v Campbell & Ors [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch) (29 January 2026)

Smith & Ors v Campbell & Ors [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch) (29 January 2026)

Although the claimants achieved partial success by removing two trustees and appointing an independent trustee, their claim was exaggerated and most allegations of misconduct failed. Both parties contributed to the failure of early ADR, but the claimants were primarily responsible for the lack of pre-action correspondence and early mediation. In these circumstances, it would not be just to order the trustees to pay the claimants' costs. The trustees' costs were not improperly incurred; they acted reasonably in defending themselves and made reasonable settlement proposals. Therefore, there is no order as to costs between the parties, and the trustees retain their indemnity from the trust...

Citation
[2026] EWHC 144 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nathan James Smith; Claimant: Leah-Jane Styring; Claimant: Suzanne April Smith; Defendant: Ian Patrick Campbell; Defendant: Malcolm Ronald Taylor; Defendant: Sarah Cheslyn-Curtis; Defendant: Maldwyn Stephen Henry Worsley-Tonks MBE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Trust Litigation (removal of Trustees) / Post Trial Costs Judgment
Outcome
No order as to costs between the parties; trustees entitled to indemnity from trust assets for their costs.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Trustee Indemnity, Removal of Trustees, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Litigation Conduct
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Costs Orders Trustee Indemnity Removal of Trustees Alternative Dispute Resolution Litigation Conduct

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan James Smith

Claimant

Leah-Jane Styring

Claimant

Suzanne April Smith

Claimant

Ian Patrick Campbell

Defendant

Malcolm Ronald Taylor

Defendant

Sarah Cheslyn-Curtis

Defendant

Maldwyn Stephen Henry Worsley-Tonks MBE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trust Litigation (removal of Trustees) / Post Trial Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Incidence of costs as between parties in trustee removal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether trustees should be deprived of indemnity from trust assets for their costs

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimants achieved partial success by removing two trustees and appointing an independent trustee, their claim was exaggerated and most allegations of misconduct failed. Both parties contributed to the failure of early ADR, but the claimants were primarily responsible for the lack of pre-action correspondence and early mediation. In these circumstances, it would not be just to order the trustees to pay the claimants' costs. The trustees' costs were not improperly incurred; they acted reasonably in defending themselves and made reasonable settlement proposals. Therefore, there is no order as to costs between the parties, and the trustees retain their indemnity from the trust...

Court Disposition

No order as to costs between the parties; trustees entitled to indemnity from trust assets for their costs.

Orders

  • No order as to costs as between the parties.
  • Trustees entitled to be indemnified out of the assets of the Trust in respect of their costs of the claim.