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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll