CHANCERY DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR |
||
B e f o r e :
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
____________________
Damian Lines (as administrator of the Estate of Mrs NE Brock, deceased) |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) Maureen Wilcox (2) Gary Wilcox (3) Clive Brock (4) Caroline Brock (5) Michelle Long |
Defendants |
____________________
Gareth Thomas (instructed by Everett Tomlin Lloyd & Pratt) for the First and Second Defendants
The third to fifth defendants made no submissions
Decision on paper after written submissions
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HHJ Paul Matthews :
Introduction
Procedure
The hearing of 17 December 2018
The Beddoe jurisdiction
"In a case where the dispute is between rival claimants to a beneficial interest in the subject matter of the trust, rather the duty of the trustee is to remain neutral and (in the absence of any court direction to the contrary and substantially as happened in Merry [v Pownall] [1898] 1 Ch 306) offer to submit to the court's directions leaving it to the rivals to fight their battles. If this stance is adopted, in respect of the costs necessarily and properly incurred eg in serving a defence agreeing to submit to the courts direction and in making discovery, the trustees will be entitled to an indemnity and lien."
Re Evans deceased
"In my view, in a case where the beneficiaries are all adult and sui juris and can make up their own minds as to whether the claim should be resisted or not, there must be countervailing considerations of some weight before it is right for the action to be pursued or defended at the cost of the estate. I would not wish to curtail the discretion of the court in any future case but, as already indicated, those considerations might include the merits of the action. I emphasise that these remarks are directed only to cases where all the beneficiaries are adult and sui juris."
The claimant's submissions
"failure, excusable or inexcusable, by the trustees in the performance of their duty owed by the trustees to the beneficiary to protect the trust estate or to protect the interests of the beneficiary in the trust estate" (see per Lord Templeman in Hayim v Citibank NA [1987] AC 730, 748, quoted in Roberts v Gill [2011] 1 AC 240, [52]).
On the contrary, says the claimant, in this case the personal representative is able and willing to issue the claim, but seeks the protection of a Beddoe order first.
The first and second defendants' submissions
"These cases raise special difficulties. If the claimant in the claim against the estate or trust fund is himself one of the beneficiaries, and the dispute is in the nature of a family dispute, then if all the beneficiaries are ascertained and of full age so that they can make up their own minds as to whether the claim should be resisted or not, it will usually be ordered the beneficiaries be joined as defendants in the substantive proceedings and left to fight the claim, if they so wish, at their own expense, rather than that the claim be fought at the expense of the fund or estate. Similar considerations apply where one of the beneficiaries wants the representative or trustee to make a claim against another beneficiary…"
Discussion
Conclusion