Mason & Ors v Coleman & Ors

Mason & Ors v Coleman & Ors

The defendants, as trustees, failed to provide proper accounts when requested and did not respond adequately to pre-action correspondence. The claimants were entitled to an account and to costs up to the end of February 2006, as the defendants' conduct justified such an order. After February 2006, as the claimants'...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Bernard Philip Mason; Claimant: Robert Gordon Birtwistle; Claimant: Trent Douglas Birtwistle; Claimant: Derek Chet Birtwistle; Claimant: Joseph David Camm; Claimant: Ivy May Colclough; Defendant: Peter Alan Coleman; Defendant: Josephine Coleman; Defendant: Alliance Suisse SA; Defendant: Independent Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trusts and Fiduciary / Post Compromise, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs apportioned; claimants awarded costs up to end of February 2006, defendants entitled to indemnity from trust assets for costs thereafter; specific costs orders made for individual applications as detailed in judgment.
Legal Topics
Trustee Duty to Account, Costs in Trust Litigation, Removal of Trustees, Indemnity From Trust Assets, Pre Action Protocol Compliance
Trusts Fiduciary Law Civil Procedure Trustee Duty to Account Costs in Trust Litigation Removal of Trustees Indemnity From Trust Assets Pre Action Protocol Compliance

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Philip Mason

Claimant

Robert Gordon Birtwistle

Claimant

Trent Douglas Birtwistle

Claimant

Derek Chet Birtwistle

Claimant

Joseph David Camm

Claimant

Ivy May Colclough

Claimant

Peter Alan Coleman

Defendant

Josephine Coleman

Defendant

Alliance Suisse SA

Defendant

Independent Finance Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trusts and Fiduciary / Post Compromise, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants as trustees were liable for costs of proceedings brought by beneficiaries for an account and related reliefs
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were entitled to indemnity from trust assets for their costs
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were entitled to costs for various applications including removal of trustees

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, as trustees, failed to provide proper accounts when requested and did not respond adequately to pre-action correspondence. The claimants were entitled to an account and to costs up to the end of February 2006, as the defendants' conduct justified such an order. After February 2006, as the claimants' challenge to the account was not pursued to a successful conclusion, the defendants were entitled to indemnity from trust assets for their costs. Costs for specific applications were allocated based on the parties' conduct and the outcome of each application.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; claimants awarded costs up to end of February 2006, defendants entitled to indemnity from trust assets for costs thereafter; specific costs orders made for individual applications as detailed in judgment.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimants' costs of the application for a summary account on the standard basis; no indemnity for defendants for these costs.
  • Defendants to pay costs of preparing the account; no indemnity for these costs.