Mussell & Anor v Patience & Anor

On taking an account between executors and beneficiaries, the executor need initially establish only that the sum was spent and that it was spent in the fair execution of the estate administration. A voucher will normally suffice where it shows payment or receipt and identifies expenditure connected with the estate. The executor need not initially prove that solicitors’ charges were reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount, and need not provide detailed time records, hourly rates or a breakdown of work. Beneficiaries may rebut the resulting inference with evidence. Detailed assessment rules do not govern the settling of the executor’s account.

The claimants, executors of the estate of Louis Patience, sought directions concerning estate accounts which two beneficiary defendants had declined to approve. During the trial, the court identified that the substance of the claim was an application for the taking of an account and approval of the accounts in default of agreement.

The defendants challenged 26 entries for solicitors’ charges, arguing that the supporting material did not provide enough information to assess whether the charges were reasonable. The claimants argued that the issue was whether the expenses were properly incurred in the conduct of the executors’ office, rather than whether the charges satisfied the requirements of detailed costs assessment. The ruling determined the legal test to be applied to those objections.

1. Nature of the proceedings. The claim was treated as one for the taking of an account, notwithstanding its presentation as a claim for directions concerning the administration of the estate.
2. Applicable test. On taking an account, an executor is entitled to all just allowances. The executor must initially show: (1) that the sum was in fact spent; and (2) that it was spent in the fair execution of the estate administration. The court relied on CPR PD 40A, para 4 and the settled rule described in Williams, Mortimer and Sunnucks, Executors, Administrators and Probate.
3. Evidence required. Payment or receipt will normally be shown by a voucher. Fair execution will normally be shown by an invoice identifying the executor, the estate administration, or goods or services connected with the estate. The beneficiaries may rebut the resulting inference by adducing contrary evidence.
4. Solicitors’ charges. The executor need not initially prove that a charge was reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount. Those questions belong to the assessment of solicitors’ costs and do not arise at the initial stage of deciding whether the expenditure may be entered in the estate accounts. CPR r 44.5(1) therefore did not govern the settling of the account.
5. Level of detail. A solicitors’ invoice need provide only basic information showing professional charges to the executor, as executor, in relation to the administration of the particular estate. Detailed time records, hourly rates and a breakdown of the work done were unnecessary at this stage.
6. The parties were directed to apply the test to the remaining objections, with any unresolved matters to be dealt with on the papers or restored for further hearing.