Reeves v Frain [2025] EWHC 2311 (KB), handed down last month, concerned a family dispute over the £100m estate of Kevin Patrick Reeves. Mr Justice Dexter Dias upheld Costs Judge Brown’s ruling in January, in Reeves v Frain and McKinnon [2025] EWHC 185 (SCCO), that the two DBAs used by Frain and McKinnon’s solicitors were unlawful and incapable of supporting recovery of costs. Consequently, Frain and McKinnon’s solicitors are unable to recover their fees, estimated at more than £1.6m, from Louise Reeves.
Delivering his judgment, Dexter Dias J said: ‘Recoveries, to my mind, does not include future receipts beyond the end of proceedings that may or may not require further proceedings. It does not include a declaration about which of two wills is effective… I cannot think that the spectre of future payments that remain to be quantified at some future unspecified date beyond the end of the proceedings offers clarity or protection.’
Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, which acted for the successful claimant Louise Reeves, stated: ‘This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the operation of DBAs.
‘The court has confirmed that such agreements must strictly comply with the statutory framework if they are to be enforceable. The decision has important implications for the wider use of DBAs in complex litigation.’
Previously, Louise Reeves, daughter of the deceased, had sought a declaration that her father’s 2014 will was valid. Frain and McKinnon, son and grandson of the deceased, had argued the will was executed without the deceased’s consent and therefore invalid. Frain and McKinnon won the case. A judge subsequently granted probate for a 2012 will and ordered Reeves to pay 70% of Frain and McKinnon’s costs.
