header-logo header-logo

18 October 2024 / Chris Bryden , Ben Haseldine
Issue: 8090 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate , Costs , In Court
printer mail-detail

Probate: who pays the bill?

193149
A recent judgment gave much-needed clarification on costs in probate cases, write Chris Bryden & Ben Haseldine
  • Briefly sets out the facts of Leonard v Leonard, and examines the dispute between the parties over costs.
  • Discusses the common law exceptions to the general rule, and sets out important points from the Leonard judgment, as well as the details of the Part 36 offer that had been made by the claimants.

In the recent case of Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 979 (Ch), Mrs Justice Joanna Smith has provided useful guidance in respect of the rules relating to costs in probate cases. This article will explore that guidance.

The substantive claim

The claimants were the biological children of the deceased, Jack. The defendants were the deceased’s second wife, stepchildren, and step-grandchildren. The deceased made a will in 2007 and a later will in 2015. At the time that the later will was prepared, it was accepted by all parties that Jack had been suffering from dementia.

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll