Welcome to the third quarterly case update of 2026 from the Probate and Trusts team at St Philips Chambers.
This update has been written by Christopher Buckingham TEP, Abigail Collier and Abbi Robinson.
General enquiries can be sent to: commercial@st-philips.com.
Senior Courts Costs Office
Royal Holloway and Bedford New College v QLaw Legal Services Limited [2026] EWHC 2090 (SCCO): A will appointed the directors of the Defendant to be a co-executor but incorporated no express charging provision. The residuary beneficiary applied under s 71(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 for an assessment of bills totalling over £53k.
Referring to ss 28 – 29, 35 & 39 of the Trustee Act 2000 and Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brearley [2024] EWCA Civ 303 Costs Judge Leonard concluded that, in the absence of an express charging clause and compliance with s 29, the Defendant had no right to charge for services rendered. De facto acquiescence on the part of the other co-executor in the rendering of charges to the estate could not constitute sufficient agreement to satisfy s 29(2).
Decisions of High Court Judges
Stock v Neal [2026] EWHC 1823 (Ch): Claim seeking determination as to whether royalty payments paid to a trust settled by Reverend Awdry (author of Thomas the Tank Engine!) were capital or income for trust law purposes. Richards J found clear intention within the trust instrument that the royalties were capital.
Corbel v Golding [2026] EWHC 2069 (Ch): A former executor was found in contempt of court for repeatedly failing to hand over the original will and estate papers despite multiple court orders. A custodial imprisonment of seven months was imposed, suspended on condition of delivery of the documentation by the end of the week.
Battiler v Edwards [2026] EWHC 2086 (Ch): Will validity case in which the deceased had left her residuary estate to her grandson (at odds with a will made 4 months earlier in which her daughter and son had benefitted). Preferring hand writing expert evidence adduced by the defendant, it was held in a refreshingly concise judgment that the deceased did not sign the later Will.
Garden House Software Limited v Marsh [2026] EWHC 2184 (Ch): Complex case arising in an corporate insolvency context, but which, materially, includes a helpful reminder of the law of dishonest assistance at [393 – 7].
Ahmed v Uddin [2026] EWHC 2196 (Ch): Decision of HHJ Davis-White KC concerning leave to bring charity proceedings under s 115 of the Charities Act 2011. After setting out the law at [20 – 21] and analysing the facts, the Judge concluded that he was not satisfied that there was any benefit to the charity in the proposed proceedings and held that permission should be refused.
Decisions of High Court Judges continued
Dignity Funerals Limited v Inertia Financial Consultancy [2026] EWHC 2271 (Ch): A proprietary injunction was granted but a freezing injunction refused in the context of a case arising from a trust to which moneys were paid pursuant to funeral plans.
Ofori-Kuma v Ofori-Kuma [2026] EWHC 2327 (Fam): A sad case concerning a claim for an order granting the deceased’s mother responsibility for her daughter’s funeral arrangements. The claim was dismissed, and a limited grant and injunction granted to allow the deceased’s children to make the appropriate arrangements. There is a detailed summary of the relevant law from [33] (which is worth reading in full). MacDonald J held on the facts that there were no special circumstances so as to justify passing over the priority of the deceased’s children under r.22(1) of the NCPR.
Elliott v Bateson [2026] EWHC 2440 (Ch): Consolidated Will validity claim (alleging i) want of knowledge and approval ii) undue influence) and 1975 Act claim. At the age of 92 and suffering from Parkinson’s, the testator had executed a new Will which had been drafted by an experienced solicitor. Certain words from the Will were struck out, it being held that the nature of a particular trust had not been explained sufficiently clearly prior to execution. A rare example of a successful challenge on the basis of want of knowledge and approval in the absence of a capacity challenge.
Decisions of High Court Masters
Key v Key [2026] EWHC 2098 (Ch): A classic sibling dispute where brother and sister were the joint executors and only beneficiaries, but appear to have been estranged even at the point of their mother’s death. In a relationship “riven with conflict and mistrust” [56], the Court appointed a professional to administer the estate. There was no real criticism of one executor in occupying an estate asset [57], but as he had offered to pay occupation rent there was no significant analysis of the law.
Bisiker v Bisiker [2026] EWHC 2070 (Ch): Dispute between adult siblings/half-siblings as to whether a valuable property purchased in the name of one of them in 1984 was the subject of a (non-express) trust. There is a helpful summary of the law from [42]. On the facts, the claim failed.
Rogers v Wills [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch): Quantum judgment following the widely reported liability judgment ([2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch)) in which a daughter succeeded in bringing a claim against her mother’s estate in respect of care given. Judgment was entered for £127,500.
Ross v Phillips [2026] EWHC 2227 (Ch): The Court determined that a declaration of trust was invalid, and ordered an account in respect of certain properties. Construing the liability order objectively, this was to be a common account rather than on the basis of wilful default [35 – 42]. The judgment works through the minutiae of taking an account.
James v James [2026] EWHC 2190 (Ch): Judgment on a straightforward interpretation question, specifically, whether there was a contrary intention so as to exclude the operation of s 33 of the Wills Act 1837. Following a well-established line of case law, it was held that s 33 was not excluded.
Croll v Estate of Margaret Thorpe, Decd [2026] EWHC 2232 (Ch): Bizarre case in which the COP had apparently ruled on the invalidity of a Will. There was no issue estoppel and the COP had no power to make such a ruling. Accordingly, a strike out/summary judgment application in a Probate Claim was refused.
Disclaimer: This article has been prepared for informational purposes only, is general in its nature and should not be construed and/or relied upon as giving legal advice.
