Court resolves family dispute over funeral arrangements

Introduction

On 14 March 2025, the High Court handed down a judgment in the case of Anilkumar Patel vs Jayaben Patel, concerning a dispute over the funeral arrangements for the late Bhikhubhai Rambhai Patel. The case, heard by HHJ Paul Matthews, involved the deceased's son and daughter, who were appointed as executors and trustees of his will. The court's decision addressed the funeral arrangements, costs, and permission to appeal.

Background

The deceased, Bhikhubhai Rambhai Patel, passed away on 30 December 2024. His will appointed his son, Anilkumar Patel, and daughter, Jayaben Patel, as executors and trustees, leaving the residue of his estate to them equally. However, they could not agree on the funeral arrangements. The court previously decided that the body should be cremated and the ashes scattered in England according to Hindu rites, with both parties jointly responsible for the arrangements.

Costs

The court addressed the issue of costs, noting that under the general law, costs are at the court's discretion. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party, but the court may decide otherwise. In this case, the court determined that the costs should come out of the estate, considering the circumstances and the nature of the dispute.

Probate Cases

The court considered the principles applicable in probate cases, where disputes arise due to unclear intentions of the deceased. The case was likened to situations where litigation is caused by the deceased's failure to make intentions clear, warranting costs to come out of the estate. The court found that the deceased's lack of clear instructions contributed to the dispute.

Trust and Estate Cases

Special rules for trust and estate cases were also considered. Under CPR rule 46.3, personal representatives are entitled to costs out of the estate if they are not recovered from another person. The court found that both parties acted in the estate's interest and did not act unreasonably, warranting costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

Assessment of Costs

The court assessed the claimant's costs, which amounted to £22,112 before VAT. The court found the solicitors' fees unreasonable in amount, reducing them to £6,500, but did not find the counsel's fees unreasonable. The costs were to be assessed on an indemnity basis, disallowing costs unreasonably incurred.

Permission to Appeal

The first defendant sought permission to appeal, but the court found no real prospect of success or compelling reason for an appeal. The court emphasized the role of judges as referees, not investigators, and the importance of presenting all relevant material during the trial.

Conclusion

The court's decision highlights the complexities involved in probate disputes, particularly when the deceased's wishes are unclear. The ruling provides guidance on costs and appeals in similar trust and estate cases, underscoring the importance of clear communication and documentation of intentions.

Learn More

For more information on probate and trust disputes, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.

Copyright & permissions