Lucilla Mary Belson & Ors v Timothy Belson & Ors

Lucilla Mary Belson & Ors v Timothy Belson & Ors

The claimants are the successful parties, having obtained orders for accounts and substantial recovery. The first defendant’s conduct did not justify departing from the general rule on costs. The claimants’ conduct regarding settlement and mediation was reasonable. Indemnity costs are not justified as the first defendant’s conduct, while responsible for increased costs, was not 'out of the norm'. Costs are to be paid by the first defendant on the standard basis.

Parties
Claimant: Lucilla Mary Belson; Claimant: Rose Mary Olivia Thomasin-Foster; Claimant: The Estate of the Late John Anthony William Belson (represented by the First Claimant pursuant to CPR r.19.12(1)(b)); Defendant: Timothy Belson; Defendant: Fidelis Legal Services Limited; Defendant: Sophie Simmons; Defendant: Charlotte Kathleen Winifred Joy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Property Trusts and Probate / Costs Ruling Following Substantive Orders
Outcome
Claimants awarded costs of the claim from 5 September 2023 onwards, to be paid personally by the first defendant on the standard basis. The first defendant is not entitled to indemnify himself from the estate or other fiduciary funds.
Legal Topics
Costs, Fiduciary Duties, Accounts and Inquiries, Settlement and Mediation, Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Costs Fiduciary Duties Accounts and Inquiries Settlement and Mediation Assessment of Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucilla Mary Belson

Claimant

Rose Mary Olivia Thomasin-Foster

Claimant

The Estate of the Late John Anthony William Belson (represented by the First Claimant pursuant to CPR r.19.12(1)(b))

Claimant

Timothy Belson

Defendant

Fidelis Legal Services Limited

Defendant

Sophie Simmons

Defendant

Charlotte Kathleen Winifred Joy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Property Trusts and Probate / Costs Ruling Following Substantive Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purposes of costs?
  2. 2 Should the general rule on costs be departed from due to conduct or settlement offers?
  3. 3 Should costs be assessed on the indemnity basis?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants are the successful parties, having obtained orders for accounts and substantial recovery. The first defendant’s conduct did not justify departing from the general rule on costs. The claimants’ conduct regarding settlement and mediation was reasonable. Indemnity costs are not justified as the first defendant’s conduct, while responsible for increased costs, was not 'out of the norm'. Costs are to be paid by the first defendant on the standard basis.

Court Disposition

Claimants awarded costs of the claim from 5 September 2023 onwards, to be paid personally by the first defendant on the standard basis. The first defendant is not entitled to indemnify himself from the estate or other fiduciary funds.

Orders

  • First defendant to pay claimants’ costs of the claim from 5 September 2023 onwards, except where already ordered.
  • First defendant not entitled to indemnify himself from the estate or other fiduciary funds.