Price v Saundry & Anor

Price v Saundry & Anor

A trustee who is found, upon the taking of an account, to have committed serious breaches of trust and misconduct is not entitled to indemnity from the trust fund for her own costs or adverse costs orders in relation to those matters; the judge erred in treating the account as not involving misconduct and in failing to consider the findings of breach of trust and serious misconduct when determining indemnity.

Parties
Appellant: Pauline Ann Price; 1st Respondent: Valery Ann Saundry; 2nd Respondent: Geraldine Sanders (as Executrix of Martin Gordon Sanders, Deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Trustee Indemnity, Costs in Trust Litigation, Breach of Trust, Removal of Trustees, Account of Trust, Misconduct by Trustees
Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Trustee Indemnity Costs in Trust Litigation Breach of Trust Removal of Trustees Account of Trust Misconduct by Trustees

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Ann Price

Appellant

Valery Ann Saundry

1st Respondent

Geraldine Sanders (as Executrix of Martin Gordon Sanders, Deceased)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When is a trustee entitled to indemnity from the trust fund for litigation costs?
  2. 2 Does misconduct or breach of trust deprive a trustee of indemnity?
  3. 3 Does failure to beat a Part 36 offer constitute misconduct for indemnity purposes?

Ratio Decidendi

A trustee who is found, upon the taking of an account, to have committed serious breaches of trust and misconduct is not entitled to indemnity from the trust fund for her own costs or adverse costs orders in relation to those matters; the judge erred in treating the account as not involving misconduct and in failing to consider the findings of breach of trust and serious misconduct when determining indemnity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed regarding indemnity for costs of the Removal claim; Mrs Saundry entitled to indemnity for those costs.
  • Appeal allowed regarding indemnity for costs of the Account claim; Mrs Saundry not entitled to indemnity from the trust fund for her own costs or adverse costs orders in relation to the Account claim.