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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll