Harris & Anor v Quantick & Anor [2026] EWHC 137 (Ch) (29 January 2026)

Harris & Anor v Quantick & Anor [2026] EWHC 137 (Ch) (29 January 2026)

The claimants' s50 application was reasonable and necessary for the administration of the estate; the first defendant's conduct was unreasonable and obstructive, escalating costs. The litigation was in substance a hostile dispute between personal representatives, not for the benefit of the estate. Therefore, except for minimal issue costs, the claimants' and beneficiary's costs are to be borne by the first defendant personally on the indemnity basis, and the first defendant is not entitled to indemnity from the estate for any costs. The claimants may recover unrecovered pre-Order costs from the estate only if D1 does not pay, but not costs incurred after the Order.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 137 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Louise Mary Harris; Claimant: Natasha Daley; Defendant: Neil Quantick; Defendant: Stroke Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Chancery Probate/trusts / Post Judgment Costs Determination Following S50 Administration of Justice Act 1985 Application
Outcome
Costs order: claimants' and beneficiary's costs (from 21 August 2025) to be paid by first defendant personally on the indemnity basis; claimants' issue costs only from estate; first defendant not entitled to indemnity from estate for any costs; claimants may recover unrecovered pre-Order costs from estate if D1 does...
Legal Topics
Removal of Executors, Costs Orders, Personal Representatives' Indemnity, Hostile Trust Litigation, Beneficiaries' Rights
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Removal of Executors Costs Orders Personal Representatives' Indemnity Hostile Trust Litigation Beneficiaries' Rights

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

Parties

Louise Mary Harris

Claimant

Natasha Daley

Claimant

Neil Quantick

Defendant

Stroke Association

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Probate/trusts / Post Judgment Costs Determination Following S50 Administration of Justice Act 1985 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' costs of the s50 application should be borne by the first defendant personally or from the estate
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant is entitled to indemnity from the estate for his costs
  3. 3 Whether the beneficiary's (Stroke Association) costs should be borne by the estate or by the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' s50 application was reasonable and necessary for the administration of the estate; the first defendant's conduct was unreasonable and obstructive, escalating costs. The litigation was in substance a hostile dispute between personal representatives, not for the benefit of the estate. Therefore, except for minimal issue costs, the claimants' and beneficiary's costs are to be borne by the first defendant personally on the indemnity basis, and the first defendant is not entitled to indemnity from the estate for any costs. The claimants may recover unrecovered pre-Order costs from the estate only if D1 does not pay, but not costs incurred after the Order.

Court Disposition

Costs order: claimants' and beneficiary's costs (from 21 August 2025) to be paid by first defendant personally on the indemnity basis; claimants' issue costs only from estate; first defendant not entitled to indemnity from estate for any costs; claimants may recover unrecovered pre-Order costs from estate if D1 does...

Orders

  • Claimants' costs of issue (as per 25 April 2025 draft consent order) are costs of the estate.
  • Claimants' costs in excess of issue costs, to be assessed on the indemnity basis, are to be paid by D1 personally.