A reminder on costs in the context of probate litigation and the importance of mediation

5 September 2019

The most recent decision in the case of Christopher Burgess v Jennifer Penny & anr [2019] EWHC 2034 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder that the principles applicable to costs in the context of probate litigation are different from the costs of other litigation and the importance of mediation.
 
The substantive judgment concerned the much publicised dispute between three siblings in relation to the distribution of the estate of their late mother, Freda Burgess. The two sisters, Jennifer Penny and Catherine Kennard alleged that their mother did not have knowledge and approval of the contents of a Will executed in January 2013 bequeathing her circa £1.5 million estate equally between her three children. At the time, the press made much of the fact that during the proceedings significant emphasis was placed by the sisters on the fact that their brother, Christopher Burgess, was richer than they were. The court found the will to be valid and consequently that the estate should be split equally in accordance with Freda’s wishes.
 
In making her judgment in relation to how the costs of the litigation should be dealt with, Mrs Catherine Newman QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge adopted the starting position that costs were at her discretion highlighting the applicable paragraphs of the CPR:
 

44.2

1. The court has discretion as to:
a. whether costs are payable by one party to another;
b. the amount of those costs; and
c. when they are to be paid.

2. If the court decides to make an order about costs:

a. the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party; but
b. the court may make a different order.
 
Of the three main issues at trial, Christopher Burgess had been successful in relation to two of the issues. It was however also noted that the third issue in relation to which Mr Burgess had lost would have contributed to a significant part of the trial preparation and the evidence. In the first instance the judge thus concluded that the starting position in relation to costs be that the sisters should pay half of their brother’s costs and Mr Burgess should pay half of his sisters’ costs (to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed).
 
The judge then turned her mind to those rules specific to contentious probate cases, as derived from Spiers v English [1907] and more recently summarised in the case of Kostic v Chaplin [2008] as follows:
 
  1. the court may order the unsuccessful party’s costs to be paid out of the estate if the litigation has been caused by the testator.
  2. if the circumstances lead reasonably to an investigation of the matter, then the court may make no order as to costs.
The judge turned to the judgment of Mr Justice Henderson in the Kostic case to derive the following additional principles from the earlier authorities referred to therein by way of further guidance:
 
a. Do the facts warrant an order different from that which would be made if costs simply followed the event?
 
b. Does one or other of the losing parties deserve to be relieved from being chargeable with costs because they did nothing more than fail in a suit which was justified by good and sufficient grounds for doubt?
 
c. Were one or more of the parties led reasonably to the bona fide belief that there were good grounds for impeaching the will?
 
d. Would departing from the general rule encourage fruitless litigation spurred on by a belief that all of the costs will come out of the estate? The courts are increasingly alert to the dangers or encouraging litigation and discouraging settlement of doubtful claims if costs are allowed out of the estate to the unsuccessful party.
 
e. Less importance is attached today than in the 19th Century to the independent duty to the Court to investigate the circumstances in which a will was executed and satisfy itself as to its validity.
 
In this case whilst there was clearly uncertainty as to whether the will had been “done properly” in circumstances whereby the sisters had confirmed that they were both content with equal division as a matter of principle High Court litigation to challenge the will was “not obviously reasonable”. 
 
The judge went on to highlight the unreasonableness of the sisters complete refusal to mediate on the basis that they wanted an admission from their brother that what he had done was wrong and did not consider that objective would be achieved at mediation. Mrs Catherine Newman QC emphasised that “mediation is not just about one side getting what they want. That is a misconception of the purpose of mediation. Mediation should be about attempting to reach a solution which both parties can live with as better alternative to litigation”. 
 
Taking all factors into consideration the conclusion reached by the judge was that initial enquiries concerning the circumstances surrounding the 2013 will was reasonable but the onward conduct of the litigation and refusal to mediate was not. The appropriate order in this case was that the parties should bear their own costs.
 

About the author

Katherine Pymont is a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution team. She has a broad spectrum of litigation experience with particular expertise in Wills, Trusts and Inheritance Disputes.

Latest blogs & news

Spotlight on dementia: can you challenge a will despite the views of medical experts?

Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, has been in the spotlight recently given a recent scientific breakthrough with the US approving the first new Alzheimer’s drug in 20 years. Light has also been shed on dementia and assessing testamentary capacity in the recent case of Hughes v Pritchard [2021] EWHC 1580 Ch. In this case, Mr Hughes, who suffered from moderately severe dementia was nevertheless deemed to have capacity at the time of amending his will by his GP, a view supported by a joint medical expert later instructed in the case. Despite this, his will was overturned by the judge on the basis that he did not have the requisite capacity to make the changes to his previous will, which were much more significant than the medical professionals, and indeed Mr Hughes, had appreciated.

When does the clock start ticking on trustees’ negligence?

Matthew & Others v Sedman & Others [2021] UKSC 19 

The Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment dealing with time limits in a “midnight deadline” case. The claim was brought by new trustees and beneficiaries of a will trust against the former professional trustees. The claim involved allegations of negligence against the former trustees, along with breach of trust and breach of contract.

Looking out for financial abuse of the vulnerable

 Financial abuse of older and vulnerable adults is sadly becoming more prevalent

You gotta’ have faith…in ADR

My previous blog examined whether Kenny Goss, the ex-partner of George Michael, may be entitled to a provision from the late singer’s estate, notwithstanding the fact that their relationship had broken down in 2009 (seven years prior to Mr Michael’s death). It was reported at the time that Mr Goss was seeking an award of £15,000 per month on the basis that Mr Michael had been financially maintaining Mr Goss at the time of his death. Pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Mr Goss made an application for reasonable financial provision from Mr Michael’s estate because he had not been left anything in the singer’s will.

Inheritance claims by adult children

In recent years the courts have seen a significant number of claims under the 1975 Act bought by adult children. This week it has been widely reported that the two adult daughters of Tony Shearer, a high profile banker and finance governor of a well-known public school, have failed in their attempt to bring a claim against their late father’s £2.2 million estate. Mr Shearer made no provision in his estate for his daughters leaving the majority of his wealth to his second wife.

What is required to show dishonesty in the case of a professional trustee?

Examining the impact of Sofer v Swiss Independent Trustees SA on practitioners in England and Wales. 

This article was first published by STEP, December 2020: Katherine Pymont, 'Moments of Truth', Trust Quarterly Review (Vol18 Iss4), pp.36-41

Whoever thought Will forgery would be easy?

Two recent decisions relating to forged wills have highlighted what evidence will be sufficient for a court to make a finding of forgery.

Contentious Trust and Probate Quarterly Round-Up: Q4 2020

This quarterly contentious trust and probate litigation update provides a summary of a cross-section of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period October 2020 - December 2020.

Beneficiaries in the dark: what can you do to obtain the information you need?

Beneficiaries often have questions and concerns over how the estate of a loved one is being administered but are sometimes kept in the dark by personal representatives (PRs). Under section 25(b) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925) PRs can be required by the court to provide, on oath, a full inventory of the estate and an account of what steps they have taken to administer an estate. 

Leaving a legacy to charity: avoiding a will construction claim

The High Court has recently given judgment in the case of Knipe v The British Racing Drivers’ Motor Sport Charity and Ors [2020] EWHC 3295 (Ch), a summary judgment application concerning the construction of a will of a deceased racing driver, Mr Barrie Williams, who had sought to make several bequests to charity but the names of the organisations had not been correctly recorded.

When can a Will be rectified? Barrett v Hammond (2020)

One of the questions we are often asked is whether an individual’s will can be amended after their death if it doesn’t reflect their intentions. This is sometimes possible under a process known as rectification, although the circumstances in which rectification is available are limited. A claim for rectification was recently considered by the court at the end of 2020 in the case of Barrett v Hammond & others.

Did George Michael have the freedom to exclude his ex-partner from his will?

It has been alleged that the ex-partner of George Michael, Kenny Goss, may be considering issuing a claim against the singer’s estate. Goss was excluded from the singer’s Will but purportedly claims he is entitled to a monthly allowance of £15,000 as the singer provided this monthly allowance to him before their relationship broke down in 2009.

Highly publicised matters arising in relation to the administration of the late Steve Bing’s estate in the US give rise to some interesting legal issues

Before the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (“the 1969 Act”) came into force on 1 September 1970, the common law rules of construction that a child is legitimate only if the child was born or conceived in wedlock applied when dealing with trust deeds or wills. The 1969 Act is not retrospective so difficulties may still arise in relation to trust deeds or wills settled/executed prior to that time.

Think twice: might the estate be insolvent?

This blog focuses on two practical considerations that should be borne in mind when dealing with an estate where there are any suspicions that the value of the assets when realised may be insufficient to meet all debts and liabilities in full.

Glover v Barker – Cost Orders against Litigation Friends

It is not uncommon in claims involving trusts and estates for one or more of the parties to be a child or other protected party. This is particularly true of claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and in cases involving trusts with minor beneficiaries. The procedures for litigation by or on behalf of a protected party are covered by Part 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 

How to challenge a will

This article was first published by EPrivateClient on the 18th August 2020

Contentious Trust and Probate Quarterly Round-Up: Q2 2020

This quarterly contentious trust and probate litigation update provides a summary of a cross-section of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period April 2020 - June 2020.

Solicitors’ Delay in preparing a Will – When is it Negligent?

Delay is a common complaint in professional negligence claims against solicitors in the context of wills and probate. For example, If a client is in poor health or advanced old age and wants to create or update their will, they might instruct a solicitor to assist with this. If the client dies before the new will can be prepared and/or executed, the beneficiaries who would have inherited, had the will been put in place before the client’s death, may look to bring a professional negligence claim against the solicitor if there has been undue delay by the solicitor in preparing the will.

Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence – When does a Professional Negligence Claim arise?

Solicitors in any field of practice are under a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill when acting for clients. In wills and probate practice, that duty also extends to the beneficiaries of a testator. If the solicitor has acted in breach of that duty, which causes loss to the client or their beneficiaries, this could form the basis for a professional negligence claim against the solicitor.

The Forfeiture Rule - can a person who is convicted of killing another benefit from their crime?

Most people would agree that if a person is convicted of unlawfully killing another person, it would be wrong for them to be allowed to benefit from their crime. For example, if a husband kills his wife and is the main beneficiary of his wife’s valuable life insurance policy, or is the main beneficiary of her estate under a will she has made, it would generally be unpalatable for the husband to be allowed to benefit from the policy or the estate. This principle is unheld in law by what is known as ‘the forfeiture rule’.

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

You may also be interested in:

Close Load more

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility