B v Erinvale PTC Limited and Ors - 25-Jan-2021 [2021] JRC 021 (25 January 2021)

B v Erinvale PTC Limited and Ors - 25-Jan-2021 [2021] JRC 021 (25 January 2021)

Erinvale's conduct did not reach the threshold of unreasonable or improper behaviour to justify deprivation of indemnity; Addition Application falls within category 2 of Re Buckton, so costs of beneficiaries should be paid from the trust fund, but B's unreasonable conduct warrants only 60% of her costs from the trust fund; costs of November Summons to be paid by B via loan account; no order as to costs for Stay Application.

Citation
[2021] JRC 021
Parties
Applicant: B; First Respondent/trustee: Erinvale PTC Limited; Beneficiary/spouse: C; Beneficiaries/intervenors: Intervenors (children of C by earlier marriage)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Trust/family/costs Application / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders made as specified; Addition Application costs partially awarded; indemnity not deprived; November Summons costs awarded against B; no order for Stay Application costs.
Legal Topics
Trustee Indemnity, Beneficiary Status, Costs Orders, Hostile Litigation, Supervisory Jurisdiction
Trusts Family Law Costs Trustee Indemnity Beneficiary Status Costs Orders Hostile Litigation Supervisory Jurisdiction

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

Parties

B

Applicant

Erinvale PTC Limited

First Respondent/trustee

C

Beneficiary/spouse

Intervenors (children of C by earlier marriage)

Beneficiaries/intervenors

Procedural Posture

Trust/family/costs Application / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Erinvale should pay B's costs of the Addition Application personally or from the trust fund
  2. 2 Whether Erinvale should be deprived of its indemnity against the trust fund
  3. 3 Appropriate allocation of costs for the Addition Application, November Summons, and Stay Application

Ratio Decidendi

Erinvale's conduct did not reach the threshold of unreasonable or improper behaviour to justify deprivation of indemnity; Addition Application falls within category 2 of Re Buckton, so costs of beneficiaries should be paid from the trust fund, but B's unreasonable conduct warrants only 60% of her costs from the trust fund; costs of November Summons to be paid by B via loan account; no order as to costs for Stay Application.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made as specified; Addition Application costs partially awarded; indemnity not deprived; November Summons costs awarded against B; no order for Stay Application costs.

Orders

  • Erinvale to pay 60% of B's costs of Addition Application from trust fund on indemnity basis, taxed if not agreed.
  • Erinvale retains indemnity for its own costs; not ordered to pay B's costs personally.