KAREN PEGLER & Ors v TIMOTHY BRUCE MCDONALD & Anor

KAREN PEGLER & Ors v TIMOTHY BRUCE MCDONALD & Anor

The defendant's unreasonable conduct caused the litigation and justified his removal as executor; accordingly, he must pay the claimants' and Ms Collins's costs without indemnity from the estate. The claimants and Ms Collins are entitled to indemnity from the estate only to the extent their costs are not recovered from the defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Karen Pegler; Claimant: Tamara Sarah Stringer; Claimant: Serena Juliet Gahagan Hulme; Claimant: Jeremy Edwin Stanley Gahagan; Defendant: Timothy Bruce McDonald; Defendant: Hugh James Trust Corporation Limited; Original Second Defendant: Gill Collins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts (removal of Executor) / Costs Ruling Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Defendant to pay claimants' and Ms Collins's costs; no indemnity from estate for defendant; claimants and Ms Collins have indemnity from estate only for unrecovered costs.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Removal of Executor, Indemnity From Estate, Trustee Conduct
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Costs Orders Removal of Executor Indemnity From Estate Trustee Conduct

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Pegler

Claimant

Tamara Sarah Stringer

Claimant

Serena Juliet Gahagan Hulme

Claimant

Jeremy Edwin Stanley Gahagan

Claimant

Timothy Bruce McDonald

Defendant

Hugh James Trust Corporation Limited

Defendant

Gill Collins

Original Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts (removal of Executor) / Costs Ruling Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the litigation to remove the executor?
  2. 2 Are the claimants and/or other parties entitled to indemnity from the estate for their costs?
  3. 3 Is the defendant entitled to indemnity from the estate for his costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's unreasonable conduct caused the litigation and justified his removal as executor; accordingly, he must pay the claimants' and Ms Collins's costs without indemnity from the estate. The claimants and Ms Collins are entitled to indemnity from the estate only to the extent their costs are not recovered from the defendant.

Court Disposition

Defendant to pay claimants' and Ms Collins's costs; no indemnity from estate for defendant; claimants and Ms Collins have indemnity from estate only for unrecovered costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimants' costs of the claim.
  • Defendant to pay Ms Collins's costs.