National Westminster Bank Plc v Lucas & Ors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE PATTEN
- LORD JUSTICE BEAN
Areas of Law
- Trusts and Equity
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves the administration of Jimmy Savile's estate by National Westminster Bank as executor, faced with multiple personal injury claims following allegations of abuse. The court approved the Bank’s Scheme for processing these claims, confirmed its approach as reasonable, and dismissed an appeal to remove the Bank as executor. Legal expenses incurred were validated under s.284(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, allowing recovery from the estate. The proceedings emphasize principles concerning the duties of executors, the use of schemes in estate administration, and the validation of costs.
Judgment
Mr Justice Sales:
Introduction
These proceedings relate to the administration of the estate of Jimmy Savile, the television presenter. Jimmy Savile died on 29 October 2011. The current value of his estate, after allowing for a range of expenses that have been incurred, is about £3.3 million.
Jimmy Savile left a will. The executor of the will and Jimmy Savile’s personal representative is National Westminster Bank plc (“the Bank”).
Various individuals are named in the will as beneficiaries (“the individual beneficiaries”). These include Mrs McKenna, who is Jimmy Savile’s niece and next-of-kin. Mrs McKenna has now been appointed to represent the interests of the individual beneficiaries in these proceedings. Under the will, the residue of Jimmy Savile’s estate is left to the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (“the Trust”).
On 4 October 2012 a television programme was broadcast on ITV accusing Jimmy Savile of being a serial child abuser and sex offender. As a result of that programme and the publicity and further investigations into Jimmy Savile’s activities which followed, a large number of people have come forward to make claims that they were abused by Jimmy Savile.
By the date of the hearing, 139 people had intimated to the Bank that they had personal injury claims against Jimmy Savile and his estate in relation to such abuse (“the PI Claimants”). Some of the PI Claimants have also indicated that they have claims against other defendants with whom Jimmy Savile was associated: the BBC, certain NHS hospital trusts and the charities Barnardo’s and Mind (I refer to these as “the Third Party Defendants”). The great majority of the PI Claimants are now represented by Slater & Gordon solicitors (having previously been represented by the firms of Russell, Jones and Walker and Pannone).
The claims which the PI Claimants have brought forward have not been the subject of determination in court proceedings, and in that sense remain untested allegations. But there is no serious dispute that some, perhaps many, of the claims may be well-founded and meritorious. If such claims are substantiated, there is a serious possibility, to put it no higher, that they would exhaust the money remaining in the estate, leaving the individual beneficiaries and the Trust with nothing.
On the other hand, it cannot at this stage be assumed that this outcome will arise. The individual beneficiaries and the Trust have an interest to ensure that the claims are properly scrutini