Analysis
A deputy had made an application to vary a statutory will and disputed that carers and unidentified charities needed to be served and notified of the same. The Official Solicitor made an application to resolve the dispute on service and the court determined, as argued by the Official Solicitor, that the rules required service of the variation application on carers and unidentified charities but that service on the carers could be dispensed with. The Official Solicitor made an application for the costs of the service issue.
Held:
- (1) Each case must be considered on its own merits or lack of merits with a clear appreciation that there must be a good reason for departure from the general rule. There was no requirement of bad faith or exceptional circumstances before the discretion may be exercised, though if bad faith was found this may justify an order for indemnity costs. Reported cases were no more than illustrations of the rules but offered helpful non-binding guidance.
- (2) Lack of success in this case alone was not sufficient good reason for departing from the general rule. However, it was not reasonable for the deputy to raise the arguments and contest the matter. An agreed order could have been filed without the need for a hearing. A departure from the general rule was justified. The deputy should pay P’s costs and bear his own costs of the determination of the service issue.
Continue reading "BH v JH (costs) [2024] WTLR 403"
This content is only available to members.