### Navigating the Costs of Contentious Probate: Lessons from Recent Cases
In this insightful piece, Tara McInnes, a seasoned contentious probate solicitor at The Burnside Partnership, delves into pivotal cases that underscore the significant implications of costs in contentious probate matters. Drawing from her extensive experience, McInnes revisits the landmark cases of Elliott v Simmonds [2016] and the more recent Rochford v Rochford [2020], providing a critical analysis of the outcomes and the judicial stance on costs in such disputes. Through these cases, McInnes offers valuable lessons on the importance of reasonable attempts to settle and the courts’ intolerance for tactical litigation approaches, especially in low-value estates. This article serves as a stark reminder for practitioners and parties involved in probate disputes to carefully consider the litigation risks and the potential for disproportionate costs.
Recent Cases Highlight the Importance of Reasonable Conduct in Contentious Probate Matters
In the realm of contentious probate, the recent revisitation of notable cases by Tara McInnes, a specialist solicitor at The Burnside Partnership, underscores the critical importance of reasonable conduct and the potential for significant costs implications for parties who fail to heed this advice.
The case of Elliott v Simmonds [2016] serves as a pivotal example, where the claimant, represented by McInnes, sought to prove the will of her late partner. The claimant’s success at trial, coupled with a substantial costs order against the defendant, highlights the consequences of entering caveats against estates without just cause. The defendant’s passive defense strategy, despite sufficient disclosure that should have prompted a reevaluation of their position, led to a costly trial and a £100,000 costs order in favour of the claimant. This case illustrates the court’s disapproval of tactical delays and unnecessary trials, especially when evidence does not support the invalidity of a will.
Similarly, the Rochford v Rochford [2020] case, though currently unreported, mirrors the sentiments expressed in Elliott. In Rochford, the claimant, an adult child, pursued a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, arguing that her late father’s will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her. Despite the differing facts from Elliott, the outcome regarding costs was strikingly similar. The defendant’s overly detailed approach to disclosure and reluctance to engage in early settlement discussions led to a judgment in favor of the claimant, including a capital award and a costs order against the defendant.
The Rochford case details the strained relationship between Ms. Rochford and her late father, exacerbated by a miscommunication that led to her being largely disinherited. Despite efforts to reconcile, the father’s subsequent death led Ms. Rochford to challenge the will, culminating in a virtual trial that not only awarded her £85,000 over the initial legacy but also favored her with a significant costs order due to the defendant’s failure to engage constructively in the process.
Recorder Williamson QC’s decision in Rochford emphasizes the court’s preference for early mediation, especially in cases involving modest estates. The judgment criticizes the defendant’s stance on disclosure and mediation, pointing out that such matters should be approached with a view towards settlement, particularly when the estate does not involve complex financial structures.
Conclusion
The outcomes of both Elliott and Rochford serve as stark reminders of the potential costs implications in contentious probate matters. These cases illustrate the court’s disfavor towards unnecessary litigation and tactical delays, advocating instead for early mediation and reasonable attempts at settlement. For practitioners and parties involved in such disputes, these examples highlight the importance of assessing litigation risks and the need to act in a manner that seeks to resolve disputes efficiently and fairly, without resorting to protracted legal battles.
As contentious probate matters continue to evolve, the lessons from Elliott and Rochford underscore the necessity of balancing the pursuit of one’s legal rights with the practicalities of litigation risk and costs. These cases serve as cautionary tales for those who might otherwise engage in litigation without due consideration of these factors.
