Fireworks for fiduciaries? Bonfire night judgment raises questions about Trustees’ behaviour in litigation

Macfarlanes has successfully obtained an order forcing two trustees, Christopher Burgess and Redshank Business Services Limited, to explain their management of approximately £12.5m paid into trust by almost 20,000 consumers to pay for their funerals, but which has instead been paid out to Pride Planning Limited, the funeral plan company that settled the Trust. 

It is a victory for funeral plan customers and demonstrates that trustees who seek to avoid questions can be held to account by the court and forced to pay the legal costs personally.

Macfarlanes represents Dignity Funerals Limited (Dignity) and Ms Veronica Lake. Ms Lake is a consumer who purchased a funeral plan from Pride Planning Limited and paid her plan fees into the Pride Planning Trust. Pride Planning then stopped offering funeral plans after the funeral plan industry became FCA regulated. Dignity agreed to provide a funeral to any Pride Planning customer who chose to transfer their funeral plan to Dignity. Dignity, Pride Planning and the then-Trustees agreed a process for the trust funds to be transferred to Dignity, while Dignity took the risk of any shortfall in the amounts.

Over 17,500 customers, including Ms Lake, opted to transfer their funeral plans from Pride Planning to Dignity. However, the funds held in the Trust were not transferred to Dignity. Information that was later provided showed that approximately £12.5m that was held in the Trust to pay for customers’ funerals was paid to Pride Planning after the customers transferred to Dignity, although Pride Planning no longer offers funerals and does not have regulatory clearance to do so. The trustees declined to provide an account of the trust, resulting in this claim. 

The claim came to trial on 5 November 2025 before Deputy Master Dovar. On the morning of the hearing, the trustees dropped their opposition and the Court upheld the claim entirely and ordered the trustees to provide a full formal account of the trust. Deputy Master Dovar attached a penal notice to the order, warning that failure to provide the account could result in fines or imprisonment for contempt of court.

The court found that the trustees’ refusal to provide an account voluntarily amounted to a gross breach of duty that justified an award of costs against them personally on the indemnity basis. The behaviour relied upon as examples of that improper conduct included the following.

• Promising an account of the Trust on a number of occasions, but failing to provide it.
• Electing not to inform Dignity that the trustees had been changed (following a direction signed by Adam Deering, the sole director of Pride Planning, to which most of the funds had been paid).
• Failing to respond in time to the application.
• Failing to engage with proceedings for the six weeks leading up to the hearing.
• Questioning each aspect of Dignity’s and Ms Lake’s case, before accepting on the morning of the hearing that there was no defence to the claim.

The Deputy Master found that in litigation against their beneficiaries, trustees can be held to a higher standard than a commercial party. He found that there was no explanation for the refusal to provide the account voluntarily and that the trustees had “not just buried their head in the sand but have actively opposed the matter”. The trustees were ordered to pay £240,000 of legal costs from their personal assets.

The case is a stark reminder to trustees of the seriousness of the duties they take on by agreeing to look after other people’s assets. If they fail to discharge those duties, their obligations can be enforced through the court and there may be serious consequences for them in terms of costs.

The proceedings are ongoing.