header-logo header-logo

Probate: who pays the bill?

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll