Wooldridge v Wooldridge & ors (costs) [2021] WTLR 777

Analysis

The claimant was the 50-year-old widow of the deceased. She brought a claim for reasonable financial provision to be made for her from the estate of her late husband, Ian Wooldridge.

The first, second and third defendants were the executors of the estate and adopted a neutral stance. The fourth and fifth defendants opposed the claim.

The claim was dismissed, and the costs of the claim fell to be determined.

The claimant accepted that she had to pay the costs of the first, second and third defendants assessed on the indemnity basis. She also accepted that she had to pay the costs of the fourth and fifth defendants, and argued that this should be assessed on the standard basis. The fourth and fifth defendants argued that their costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis. They also argued that the court should summarily assess their costs. The fourth defendant’s costs were £508,267.20, and the fifth defendant’s costs were £307,591.23.

Held:

1. (1) It was not appropriate to summarily assess the costs, taking into account (a) the magnitude of the costs claimed, and (b) the fact that they had increased since the costs budgets were agreed. The costs would be subjected to a detailed assessment.
2. (2) The costs of the fourth and fifth defendants would be assessed on the indemnity basis. This was a case that was ‘out of the norm’. This was for three main reasons:
   1. a) the claim was exaggerated and unrealistic;
   2. b) the claimant had failed to engage with sensible offers of settlement; and
   3. c) the claimant’s conduct had been poor, especially in making unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty, and in attempting to besmirch the fourth defendant’s character for no good reason.

The main judgment for this case is available here. JUDGMENT (COSTS) HHJ WALDEN-SMITH: [1] I have received submissions on costs from the Claimant, the Fourth Defendant and the Fifth Defendant. I must first apologise for the delay in providing this judgment. This has been due to various judicial commitments. [2] Having considered with care the …

Continue reading "Wooldridge v Wooldridge & ors (costs) [2021] WTLR 777"