CH-2025-BRS-000001 - [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch)

Julian says that the judge failed to apply the correct legal principles governing conflict of interest and self-dealing in the context of executors. He also says that the judge erred in finding a conflict of interest without properly considering the content of the correspondence, and that his finding of a risk of self-dealing by Julian was speculative and unsupported by the factual matrix before the court.

As to the legal principles, the judge was taken to and read the relevant parts of Bray v Ford and Bristol and West Building Societyv Mothew. The Supreme Court’s decision in Rukhadze was handed down only after the hearing before the judge, but this merely affirmed the position as set out in the earlier authorities. Even though the judge did not refer to the authorities in his judgment, there is no basis for supposing that he was relying on any others, let alone that they did not express the correct principles. The terms of his judgment are consistent with the application of the principles set out in those three cases.

Julian does not refer to specific items of correspondence as not having been taken into account, but the fact that the judge does not analyse the correspondence in his judgment does not mean that he did not have it in mind. I must approach consideration of his judgment on the assumption that the judge knew how to perform the judicial function, and therefore would take into account all the evidence before the court. It is not necessary that in his judgment the judge deal with every point made to him in argument. The weight that he gave to the evidence was a matter for him, and I have no basis for interfering with his decision in relation to that weight.

The judge’s appreciation of the risk of self-dealing by Julian is clear from the judgment (at [19](4)-(7)). I see no basis for calling this risk “speculative”, if by that is meant a risk which should not be taken into account by the judge. It was a matter for him to evaluate, having taken the evidence into account. There is no evidential basis for supposing that he did not do so. This ground too fails.