- Trustees’ entitlement to costs indemnities despite failing to accept a beneficiary’s Part 36 offer (Price v Saundry)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- The claim for an account
- The rectification claim
- The defendants’ entitlement to an indemnity
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court’s decision in Price v Saundy illustrates that, where the parties to litigation have agreed that the focus of the claim should be shifted without the original basis of the claim being settled or determined, it is inappropriate to make any order for costs between the parties. The court also considered trustee’s entitlement to costs indemnities and found that (1) the general rule is that a trustee will be entitled to an indemnity out of the trust fund for their costs. That indemnity extends to an indemnity for adverse costs. The trustee should be deprived of that indemnity in limited circumstances, including where there has been misconduct or the trustee has acted otherwise than for the benefit of the fund. (2) A trustee’s failure to accept a Part 36 offer, which is subsequently bettered at trial, does not represent misconduct or a breach of trust and should not operate to deprive the trustee of their indemnity for costs. Written by Alex Bagnall, Costs Lawyer at Total Legal Solutions.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial