Stock -v- Pantrust [2016] JRC 069 (22 March 2016)

Stock -v- Pantrust [2016] JRC 069 (22 March 2016)

First to third respondents acted unreasonably and in conflict with trust interests, mounting jurisdictional challenge and resisting removal to secure personal position, justifying indemnity costs order for representor and fourth respondent. Internal costs claim by fourth respondent rejected as not recoverable through costs order.

Citation
[2016] JRC 069
Parties
Representor: Tanya Marya Dick Stock; First Respondent: Pantrust International SA; Second Respondent: Richard George De Winton Wigley; Third Respondent: James Richard De Winton Wigley; Fourth Respondent: G B Trustees Limited; First Third Party Respondent: John William Dick (Senior); Second Third Party Respondent: John William Dick (Junior); Third Third Party Respondent: Darrin Stock
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Trust Representation / Costs Order Following Removal Application
Outcome
Costs orders granted on indemnity basis against first to third respondents; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Trustee Removal, Costs Orders, Indemnity Costs, Jurisdictional Challenge
Trusts Civil Procedure Trustee Removal Costs Orders Indemnity Costs Jurisdictional Challenge

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanya Marya Dick Stock

Representor

Pantrust International SA

First Respondent

Richard George De Winton Wigley

Second Respondent

James Richard De Winton Wigley

Third Respondent

G B Trustees Limited

Fourth Respondent

John William Dick (Senior)

First Third Party Respondent

John William Dick (Junior)

Second Third Party Respondent

Darrin Stock

Third Third Party Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trust Representation / Costs Order Following Removal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on indemnity or standard basis against first to third respondents
  2. 2 Scope of costs order for representor and fourth respondent
  3. 3 Entitlement to interim payment on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

First to third respondents acted unreasonably and in conflict with trust interests, mounting jurisdictional challenge and resisting removal to secure personal position, justifying indemnity costs order for representor and fourth respondent. Internal costs claim by fourth respondent rejected as not recoverable through costs order.

Court Disposition

Costs orders granted on indemnity basis against first to third respondents; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • First to third respondents to pay representor's costs of and incidental to representations up to and including removal application (including jurisdictional challenge) on indemnity basis, excluding costs relating to setting aside 2007 and 2015 DORAS, seeking an account, Counterclaims and Third Party Claims.
  • First to third respondents to pay representor £100,000 on account of costs within period to be stipulated.