Claire Henchley & Ors v Patricia Thompson CBE & Anor
[2024] EWHC 607 (Ch)
Jemma Alizade & Ors v Martin Kudlick
10 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1082 (Ch)
High Court
A family wanted detailed financial records from a very old, sick former trustee who managed their family money many years ago. The judge said it was too late and too much to ask, and that the existing records were good enough.
Key Facts
- •Claim brought under section 25 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and the court's inherent jurisdiction over trustees.
- •Claimants: Jemma, Michael Alizade, and George Saade (beneficiaries and trustees).
- •Defendant: Martin Kudlick (former executor and trustee, aged 89).
- •Subject matter: Accounts of the administration of Harold and Ethel Miller's estates and three trusts (including the Marian Miller Settlement).
- •Claimants seek accounts spanning nearly 50 years.
- •Concerns center around the disposition of Harold Miller's property portfolio.
- •Estate accounts exist but lack detail on property sales and Inland Revenue disputes.
- •Defendant's health is a significant factor.
- •Previous inquiries regarding the administration were made by Jemma and her mother.
Legal Principles
Duty of personal representatives to render an account of estate administration (when required by the court).
Section 25(b) Administration of Estates Act 1925
Duty of trustees to keep clear and distinct accounts; retired trustees have less onerous duties but are still obligated to provide reasonable information.
Lewin on Trusts, paragraphs 21-119 and 21-121
Court has discretion to order accounts; delay (laches) can be a factor but not necessarily a bar, considering the balance between the burden on the defendant and benefit to claimants.
Henchley v Thompson [2017] EWHC 225; Ball v Ball [2020] EWHC 1020 (Ch)
Accounts should detail assets, actions taken with assets, current assets, and distributions. However, trustees are not required to explain their reasoning behind actions.
Henchley v Thompson [2017] EWHC 225; Ball v Ball [2020] EWHC 1020 (Ch); Lewis v Tamplin [2018] EWHC 777
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
Excessive delay in seeking accounts (28 years), oppressive burden on defendant's health and age, lack of proportionality between burden and potential benefit (low chance of successful further claims due to limitation periods). Existing estate accounts are deemed sufficient, considering the circumstances.
Similar Cases
Gavin Littaur v Alistair Collett & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2225 (Ch)
Jane Wilmot-Smith v Hugh Patrick Burstall & Anor
[2023] EWHC 962 (Ch)
The Estate of Neil Douglas Archibald (deceased) & Anor v Alistair James Stuart & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2515 (Ch)
Freddie Freed & Anor v Saffron Management Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1919 (Ch)