Continue reading "Costs: Action not to be taken lightly"
Costs: Action not to be taken lightly
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d63ec/d63ec4653f0b2b95c6e945ee95f9d5a3faa8eb41" alt=""
The first claimant and her co-executors sought to propound a will which was resisted by the first to third defendants. In a previous judgment the Master had determined that the will was valid as to part but the gift of residue to the first claimant failed because the testator did not know and approve of that part in light of his illiteracy and the lack of proper explanation from the will draftsman. The result was that the testator’s home was held on trust for the first claimant’s occupation but the residuary estate passed on the statutory trusts of intestacy between the five defendants.<...
This was an appeal against the decision of Deputy District Judge Whitehead dated 13 December 2022, whereby he made no order as to costs but granted the claimant permission to appeal following his successful summary judgment application, by which the claimant had sought and obtained pronouncement in solemn form in favour of the validity of the will of his mother, Ina Margaret Lumb (deceased), and ancillary orders. The learned judge found that the usual costs rule that costs follow the event did not apply because it was displaced by CPR r57.7(5)(b) under which the court would not ...
The dispute concerned which will of the deceased, Anna Rea, should be admitted to probate. Her first will dated 29 May 1986 gave all of her property to such of her four children as should survive her, if more than one in equal shares absolutely, subject to them surviving her by 28 days (the 1986 will).
A more recent will dated 7 December 2015 (the 2015 will) was witnessed by the solicitor who prepared it and the deceased’s GP. It provided for the deceased’s house to be left to the claimant, on account of the care she had given the deceased, with the residue to be divided between h...
Continue reading "Costs: Action not to be taken lightly"
Continue reading "Probate: Promises, promises"
Continue reading "Capacity: Importance of the golden rule"
On 7 April 2016 judgment was delivered pronouncing for the force and validity of the will dated 1 February 2012 (2012 will) of Kenneth William Jordan (Mr Jordan) in solemn form of law and ordering that a caveat entered by the first defendant in respect of his estate cease to have effect. The normal rule of costs is that costs follow the event. However, the Court has discretion to make a different order, taking into account, for example, the conduct of the parties. In a contentious probate claim, there are also specific exceptions to the normal rule arising under case law and under the Ci...
Continue reading "Wills: One step, two step…"
Continue reading "Trust And Probate Claims: Counting the cost"