Kershaw v Roberts & Anor

Kershaw v Roberts & Anor

The Taunton hearing was not a CMC as the claim was not yet allocated to the multi-track; therefore, the Defendants' costs budget was not late and the Rule 3.14 sanction did not apply. The costs management provisions only apply after actual allocation to the multi-track, not merely by virtue of Part 8 procedure.

Parties
Claimant: Ian Kershaw; Defendant (personal Representative of the Estate of Jane Rosalyn Jones Deceased): Marion Roberts; Defendant (reserved Personal Representative and Beneficiary of the Estate of Jane Rosalyn Jones Deceased): James Gerard Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Case Management Conferences, Costs Budgeting, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, Civil Procedure Rules Part 8, Multi Track Allocation
Civil Procedure Probate Case Management Conferences Costs Budgeting Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 Civil Procedure Rules Part 8 Multi Track Allocation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Kershaw

Claimant

Marion Roberts

Defendant (personal Representative of the Estate of Jane Rosalyn Jones Deceased)

James Gerard Jones

Defendant (reserved Personal Representative and Beneficiary of the Estate of Jane Rosalyn Jones Deceased)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first hearing in a Part 8 claim is necessarily a case management conference (CMC) triggering the obligation to serve a costs budget
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' costs budget should be restricted to applicable court fees for late filing
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order for hearings

Ratio Decidendi

The Taunton hearing was not a CMC as the claim was not yet allocated to the multi-track; therefore, the Defendants' costs budget was not late and the Rule 3.14 sanction did not apply. The costs management provisions only apply after actual allocation to the multi-track, not merely by virtue of Part 8 procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal refused; Defendants' cross-appeal allowed in part
  • Claimant to pay half of the Defendants' costs of and occasioned by the 30 January 2014 hearing; other half costs in the claim