header-logo header-logo

16 February 2012
Issue: 7501 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Probate/Costs

Wharton v Bancroft and others [2012] EWHC 91 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 33 (Feb)

In probate cases the court was required to consider two particular sets of circumstances which might necessitate a disapplication of the general rule in order to achieve justice; it also required a consideration of the same factors as ought to be considered in any other litigation. First, while remembering that costs were always awarded at the discretion of the court, it was recognised that if the cause of the litigation had its origin in the fault of the testator or of those interested in residue, then the costs might properly be paid out of the estate. The reality of such an order would be that the person who had succeeded in proving the existence of a will would pay the unsuccessful side’s costs.

The second set of circumstances that might cause a disapplication of the general rule was that if there were sufficient and reasonable grounds (looking at the knowledge and means of knowledge of the parties opposing the will) to question the

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll