Louise Mary Harris & Anor v Neil Quantick & Anor

Costs in proceedings involving personal representatives depend on the character of the dispute, the conduct of the parties and whether expenditure was properly incurred for the benefit of the estate. A personal representative’s indemnity does not extend to costs incurred substantially for personal purposes, even where the conduct was reasonable. An application necessary to resolve an administrative impasse may benefit the estate and qualify for indemnity. Costs incurred thereafter in litigating between personal representatives about who should bear costs may be a private dispute and fall outside the indemnity. The court may order indemnity costs where conduct is markedly outside the norm.

The claimants, executors of an estate, applied under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to be removed as personal representatives. The application resulted in an order removing them and leaving the first defendant as sole executor. The remaining issues concerned inter partes costs, the parties’ entitlement to indemnity from the estate, delivery of documents and possible representation of the beneficiaries. The court was required to determine the proper characterisation of the proceedings and whether the costs had been properly incurred for the estate’s benefit.

1. The claimants were the successful parties because their application for removal was granted. The first defendant’s conduct caused the application to be treated as contested and involved pursuing matters which were not in issue, including attempts to defend his reputation and obtain findings about the administration. He was therefore not successful in those matters.
2. The claimants acted reasonably in bringing the application. They had intermeddled in the estate, and court intervention was required to resolve the dispute about their status and enable proper administration. It was unnecessary and inconsistent with the overriding objective to determine which party was responsible for the breakdown in relations.
3. The first defendant’s conduct was highly unreasonable, obstructive and outside the norm. His excessive correspondence, demands for explanations and inappropriate litigation by correspondence justified indemnity costs under the principle stated in Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 879.
4. The court applied the approach in Alsop Wilkinson v Neary & Ors [1996] 1 WLR 1220 and considered the character of the proceedings. The application had elements of a trust dispute and a beneficiaries’ dispute, but was most closely analogous to hostile litigation between personal representatives. The court also applied the two questions identified in Price v Saundry [2019] EWCA Civ 2261: whether the expenses were properly incurred and whether they were incurred while acting for the trust or estate.
5. The claimants’ issue costs were estate expenses. Their subsequent costs were to be paid personally by the first defendant and assessed on the indemnity basis. If, and only to the extent that, those costs could not be recovered from him, the claimants could obtain indemnity from the estate for costs incurred up to the date of the removal order. Costs incurred thereafter in litigating over responsibility for costs were not for the estate’s benefit.
6. The first defendant was not entitled to indemnity from the estate for any costs of the proceedings, including costs he was ordered to pay. The second defendant’s costs incurred on and after 21 August 2025 were also payable by the first defendant on the indemnity basis. No representation order under CPR 19.8 was necessary or proportionate.

Not stated in the judgment.