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

the judge below correctly understood and summarised the law on the removal of executors and trustees, and Julian has got it wrong; in particular, there is no special rule relating to trustees of discretionary trusts;

the judge below did not misunderstand or misapply the law relating to conflicts of interest and making unauthorised profits, as applied to executors and trustees;

Julian chose not to file any evidence on the application, and the judge below sat late to enable both sides to make the submissions they wished; the decision to hear the application was a case management decision within his ambit of discretion;

the matters relied on as errors of fact are inconsequential;

the judge below did not exercise his judicial discretion in any properly challengeable way;

the judge below is the regional costs judge, and both knew the law on costs and applied it correctly; the decision on costs is an exercise of discretion; the judge was entitled to take away Julian’s right to an indemnity out of the estate, and to award costs against him on the indemnity basis;

the judge below provided adequate reasons, and the appellant at the hand-down of the judgment did not suggest otherwise, but instead sought to persuade the judge to decide differently.