A charitable trust had been established. Protracted disputes had taken place, and the burden of the costs required to be apportioned. The financial practices of the charity had been informal leading to confusion, and dissension. An intervention by the Charity Commission had been opposed. The judge had refused an order that the trustees who had been removed should be indemnified from the fund.
Held: The order made was within the discretion available to the judge. He had obtained all the necessary information about the matter. The appeals entered into by the applicants had no possible benefit for the charity. It was pointless, and there was no reason for the applicants to be indemnified in costs.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Holman
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 263
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Marley and 11 Others v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd Co PC 15-Oct-1990
BANKING – EQUITY, TRUSTS, PROBATE ADMINISTRATOR’S POWERS OF INVESTMENT Bank as sole administrator cannot invest estate funds in its own deposits in the absence of express sanction in the trust instrument.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Charity, Costs
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147450