header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 December 2021 / Andrew Wilkinson
Issue: 7961 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Costs & success fees after Hirachand

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
67444
Andrew Wilkinson considers the implications of Hirachand v Hirachand for lawyers & probate practitioners
  • Success fees can be recovered from an estate, the Court of Appeal held in Hirachand v Hirachand.

On Friday, 15 October, the Court of Appeal confirmed that success fees could be recovered from an estate as part of a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The ruling, in Hirachand v Hirachand [2021] EWCA Civ 1498, is confirmation that successful claimants under the Act enjoy special treatment when it comes to the recovery of costs, when compared to litigants in other claims, where the success fee is not recoverable.

This decision means that successful claimants under the Act will be able to preserve a greater share of the monies recovered under a successful claim, but will cost defendants even more, so could make cases harder to settle. On the face of it, it can be easy to think the decision will open the floodgates to lots of conditional fee agreement

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Banking and finance practice bolstered by partner hire

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

Commercial litigation team welcomes senior associate in Birmingham

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll