Final comment
Final comment
The approach taken by Julian in his appeal submissions, both written and oral, has been in effect to attempt to re-argue the whole case. This follows the appellant’s unsuccessful attempt before the judge below, on the handing-down of judgment, to persuade him to alter the substance of his judgment under the so-called Barrell jurisdiction. But, as I pointed out above (at [29]), this appeal is a review of the decision below, a position which (as I also pointed out) was also adopted formally by the appellant.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- The claim and the counterclaim
- Procedural matters
- The judgments below
- Grounds of appeal
- Stay and permission to appeal
- Appeals
- The arguments
- Nick and Leessa
- The law
- Removal of trustees
- Conflicts of interest and making unauthorised profits, as applied to executors and trustees
- Costs
- The grounds of appeal: discussion
- Ground 2: Failure to consider that the estate was substantially administered with the beneficiaries’ agreement
- Ground 3: Improper and erroneous conclusions
- Ground 4: Improper removal of the trustee from a discretionary trust
- Ground 5: Unwarranted criticism of an earlier district judge
- Ground 6: Procedural irregularities and unequal treatment prejudiced the appellant
- Ground 7: Significant misunderstanding of facts
- Ground 8: Failing to give sufficient weight to evidence corroborating the appellant’s position
- Ground 9: Erroneous order for costs against the executor
- Ground 10: Costs awarded on an indemnity basis
- Ground 11: Failure to provide adequate reasons for decisions
- Final comment
- Conclusions
![CH-2025-BRS-000001 - [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)