Crawford v McIntosh

In the case of Crawford v McIntosh, the dispute before the court centred on the administration of the estate of a deceased individual, with specific attention to the division of the residuary estate, including certain land, between two beneficiaries. The court was tasked with determining whether it was appropriate to make no order regarding costs in the litigation, which had settled on all matters except for the issue of costs. The second issue was whether it was appropriate to make an order for indemnity costs. The dispute arose from adversarial litigation surrounding the administration of the estate, which lacked sufficient funds.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of costs in a settled litigation and the appropriateness of an indemnity costs order. The court also had to consider whether the executors had the power, or could obtain the power, to seek development consent for the land that formed part of the residuary estate. The court examined the circumstances under which the estate had been administered, the nature of the dispute between the parties, and the provisions of relevant legislation and case law concerning executors' powers and the awarding of costs in settled litigation.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of fairness and justice in the allocation of costs in settled litigation. The court found that, given the adversarial nature of the litigation and the significant issues that had been resolved, it was appropriate to make no order as to costs. The court also considered the principle that indemnity costs should only be awarded in exceptional circumstances, and determined that the circumstances of this case did not warrant such an order. In addition, the court concluded that the executors had the power, or could obtain the power, to seek development consent for the land, which would allow for the realisation of funds from the estate.

The final orders of the court were that no order would be made as to costs in the litigation, and no order for indemnity costs would be made. The court also found that the executors had the power, or could obtain the power, to seek development consent for the land, which would enable the division of the residuary estate between the two beneficiaries.