Analysis
The judgment in this matter focused on the correct test that the court should apply when deciding whether to strike an entry from an account.
The claimant executors sought:
(1) a declaration that final estate accounts were in order; and
(2) directions to administer the estate accordingly.
The defendants raised objections to the accounts prepared by the executors, and in particular objected to 26 entries relating to legal services. The defendants asserted that, as beneficiaries, they had a right to assess whether such legal charges were reasonable, and to do so they had a right to be provided with sufficient information in order to make that assessment. The defendants asserted that the failure to provide sufficient information meant that these entries could not be reclaimed from the estate by the trustees.
The claimants submitted that executors have a contractual right to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in retaining solicitors, and there is a rebuttable presumption that such fees are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
Held
- 1) On the taking of an account, an executor will be entitled to all ‘just allowances’.
- 2) In order to account to the beneficiaries for sums expended in the administration of the estate, an executor needs to show:
a. That the sum in question was actually spent (eg by way of a receipt). A simple invoice would usually suffice – it would usually be unnecessary to provide a detailed breakdown of work done or hours spent; andb. That the sum in question was spent in the fair execution of administering the estate
- 3) An executor is not required to prove at the outset that the charge is reasonably made or is reasonable in amount.
- 4) The rules applicable to detailed assessment of costs do not apply to settling an account between executor and beneficiary, as the court is not conducting an assessment of the legal costs.
Continue reading "Mussell v Patience [2018] WTLR 579"