Lumb v Lumb [2023] WTLR 1459

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2023 #193

This was an appeal against the decision of Deputy District Judge Whitehead dated 13 December 2022, whereby he made no order as to costs but granted the claimant permission to appeal following his successful summary judgment application, by which the claimant had sought and obtained pronouncement in solemn form in favour of the validity of the will of his mother, Ina Margaret Lumb (deceased), and ancillary orders. The learned judge found that the usual costs rule that costs follow the event did not apply because it was displaced by CPR r57.7(5)(b) under which the court would not ...

Reeves v Drew & ors (costs) [2022] WTLR 1549

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2022 #189

In the main action, the claimant sought to prove a purported will dated 2014. The second and fourth defendants challenged the validity of the will on the grounds first of lack of knowledge and approval and secondly, by a late amendment, of undue influence. That amendment required a substantial amount of further evidence to be filed. In a judgment following trial ([2022] EWHC 159 (Ch), available in the WTLR web reports as WTLR(w) 2022-08) the judge found the 2014 will to be invalid for want of knowledge and approval, but dismissed the claim that it was procured by undue influence. The jud...

Goodwin v Avison & ors WTLR(w) 2022-04

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Costs: Action not to be taken lightly

Laura Abbott sets out the key principles concerning costs and contentious probate proceedings Any claim should be approached on the basis that costs follow the event. Parties must therefore be willing, and able, to pay their own costs and those of their opponent if they are unsuccessful. Goodwin v Avison [2021] is a useful précis …
This post is only available to members.