Mason & Ors v Coleman & Ors

Mason & Ors v Coleman & Ors

Defendants, as trustees, failed to provide proper accounts and information, justifying the claimants' applications and entitlement to costs up to February 2006. Defendants are not entitled to indemnity for costs incurred due to their failure to account. After February 2006, as the claimants' challenge to the account was not pursued successfully, claimants are not entitled to further costs and defendants are entitled to indemnity for their costs from trust assets for that period.

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 February 2006, defendants entitled to indemnity for costs thereafter; specific costs orders for applications as detailed.
Legal Topics
Trustee's Duty to Account, Trustee Indemnity, Costs in Compromised Actions, Removal of Trustees
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Trustee's Duty to Account Trustee Indemnity Costs in Compromised Actions Removal of 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 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 should pay the costs of the claim and related applications
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to indemnity from trust funds for their costs
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'costs of the claim' in the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants, as trustees, failed to provide proper accounts and information, justifying the claimants' applications and entitlement to costs up to February 2006. Defendants are not entitled to indemnity for costs incurred due to their failure to account. After February 2006, as the claimants' challenge to the account was not pursued successfully, claimants are not entitled to further costs and defendants are entitled to indemnity for their costs from trust assets for that period.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; claimants awarded costs up to February 2006, defendants entitled to indemnity for costs thereafter; specific costs orders for applications as detailed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimants' costs of the application for a summary account, costs of preparing the account, costs of the 27 September 2005 hearing, costs of the 30 January 2006 application, and costs of the application for further information.
  • No order as to costs for the 9 March 2006 hearing and the application to remove defendants as trustees; each side to bear own costs for those applications.