Jessica Jarvis

In the Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore case, Cunnick passed away in July 2019, leaving a £2.9 million estate. Her will divided the estate equally between her children, Laura Peggs and Daniel Kenig. Her brother, Saul Biber, was appointed as executor and hired solicitors Thomson Snell & Passmore to administer the estate. Despite initially estimating fees between £10,000 and £15,000, the final bill totaled £54,411. Kenig issued a claim form to the EWHC’s Senior Courts Costs Office for an assessment of the fees under the Solicitors Act 1974. Thomson Snell & Passmore argued that the invoices were justified and that the content of the relevant documents was confidential. The judge rejected the firm’s arguments, ruling that the costs over and above the initial estimate may be disallowed and ordered an assessment of all the bills.

The judge’s decision to allow the beneficiary to challenge the solicitors’ fees and order an assessment of the bills emphasizes the need for accountability and transparency in the legal profession. In my opinion, this ruling sends a strong message to legal practitioners about the importance of providing accurate estimates, clear communication, and justification for any additional costs incurred during the process.

The ruling also demonstrates that the courts take the interests of the beneficiaries seriously. In this case, the judge acknowledged that the beneficiaries should be entitled to scrutinize the legal costs associated with administering the estate. By doing so, the court is ensuring that legal fees are subject to oversight and that beneficiaries are not unduly disadvantaged by excessive charges.

Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of having checks and balances in place when it comes to managing estates. Executors should not only focus on their duty to administer the estate but also ensure that the costs incurred are reasonable and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If executors fail to do so, as in this case, beneficiaries should be able to seek recourse and hold solicitors accountable for their fees.

Overall, this case serves as a reminder to both solicitors and executors of the importance of transparency, communication, and acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries. It also empowers beneficiaries to stand up for their rights and seek legal recourse when they believe that the costs associated with administering an estate are excessive or unjustified.