TMC LEGAL | SMITH AND OTHERS v CAMPBELL AND OTHERS [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch) скачать в хорошем качестве

TMC LEGAL | SMITH AND OTHERS v CAMPBELL AND OTHERS [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch)

Trustees removed from office on hostility grounds retained their right to an indemnity from the trust fund after making early settlement proposals, while the partially successful claimants obtained no costs order having pursued exaggerated misconduct allegations. | Smith v Campbell [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch) | Trustees Retain Indemnity Despite Removal From Office Deputy Master Holden determines costs following trustee removal proceedings. Trustees removed on hostility grounds retain their right to indemnity from the trust fund after making early good faith settlement proposals, while partially successful claimants obtain no costs order having pursued exaggerated misconduct allegations. 🔑 Key Points • Trustees can retain indemnity despite being removed from office • Early good faith settlement proposals protect trustee indemnity rights • Exaggerated misconduct allegations can result in no costs order despite partial success • Pre-action conduct failures are relevant to costs discretion • No universal rule on indemnity for trustees removed on hostility grounds 📋 Case Summary Case: Smith v Campbell [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch) Judge: Deputy Master Holden Court: Chancery Division Outcome: No order as to costs; trustees retain indemnity ⚖️ Why This Matters This decision clarifies that trustees removed from office are not automatically deprived of their indemnity from the trust fund. The court emphasised that the key question is whether resistance to removal was unreasonable and in the trustees' own interests rather than the trust's interests. Practitioners must advise trustee clients to make early constructive settlement proposals to preserve indemnity rights. 🎯 What The Court Decided 1. Claimants achieved partial success removing two of four trustees 2. Claimants' conduct was unreasonable: no pre-action correspondence, exaggerated allegations, failure to engage in early ADR 3. No order as to costs between parties under CPR r.44.2 4. Trustees' costs were properly incurred under s.31(1) Trustee Act 2000 5. Trustees retained full indemnity from the trust fund under CPR r.46.3 📚 Topics Covered • Trustee indemnity from trust fund • CPR r.44.2 costs discretion • CPR r.46.3 trustee costs • Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct • Section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 • Section 31 Trustee Act 2000 • Hostile trust litigation • Partial success and costs consequences 👨‍⚖️ Judge Deputy Master Holden 💼 Useful For Costs Lawyers | Costs Draftsmen | Chancery Practitioners | Trust Litigators | Solicitors | Barristers | Legal Costs Professionals 🔗 Links Blog: https://www.tmclegal.co.uk/trustees-r... Judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/... 📞 Contact TMC Legal Website: https://www.tmclegal.co.uk Phone: 01628 526 236 Email: office@tmclegal.co.uk 🔔 SUBSCRIBE for regular updates on costs law, civil litigation, and CPR developments 📖 Related Cases • Price v Saundry [2019] EWCA Civ 2261 • Smith v Michelmores Trust Corporation Ltd [2021] EWHC 1521 (Ch) • Alsop Wilkinson v Neary [1996] 1 WLR 1220 • Hanson v Coleman [2025] EWHC 116 (Ch) • Perry v Neupert [2019] EWHC 2775 (Ch) • Jones v Longley [2015] EWHC 3362 (Ch) • Shufflebotham v Shuff-Wentzel [2025] EWHC 3321 (Ch) #TrusteeIndemnity #CPR46 #TrustLitigation #CostsLaw #ChanceryDivision #SmithvCampbell #TrustFund #LegalCosts #CPR44 #PreActionConduct #HostileLitigation #TrusteeCosts #CivilLitigation #UKLaw #TMCLegal ⚠️ Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. © 2026 TMC Legal Limited #TrusteeIndemnity #TrustLitigation #CostsLaw #CPR46 #CPR44 #ChanceryDivision #LegalCosts #TrustFund #CivilLitigation #UKCostsLaw #TrusteeCosts #PreActionConduct #ADR #PartialSuccess #NoOrderAsToCosts Optimised for: trustee indemnity, trust fund litigation costs, CPR r.46.3, trustee removal, costs discretion, hostile trust litigation, Price v Saundry, properly incurred costs