Kostic v Chaplin & Ors

Kostic v Chaplin & Ors

The court held that, down to 18 October 2006, the costs of both claimant and first and second defendants should be paid out of the estate as the testator's conduct was the primary cause of the litigation. From 19 October 2006 to 26 February 2007, each party should bear their own costs as the circumstances reasonably led to investigation. From 27 February 2007 onwards, the first and second defendants should pay the claimant's costs on the standard basis, as the litigation became ordinary adversarial litigation and the defendants persisted in their defence despite strong evidence against them. No indemnity costs or penal interest were justified as the defendants' conduct was not unreasonable.

Parties
Claimant: Zoran Kostic; First Defendant: Sir Malcolm Chaplin; Second Defendant: Martin Saunders; Third Defendant: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Probate/contentious Probate / Judgment on Costs Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs apportioned in three stages: (a) to 18 October 2006, costs of claimant and first and second defendants paid out of the estate; (b) 19 October 2006 to 26 February 2007, no order as to costs; (c) from 27 February 2007, first and second defendants to pay claimant's costs on the standard basis. Additional orders...
Legal Topics
Costs, Testamentary Capacity, Contentious Probate, Exceptions to Costs Rule
Probate Civil Procedure Costs Testamentary Capacity Contentious Probate Exceptions to Costs Rule

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoran Kostic

Claimant

Sir Malcolm Chaplin

First Defendant

Martin Saunders

Second Defendant

HM Attorney General

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/contentious Probate / Judgment on Costs Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs of the action should follow the event or be paid out of the estate under probate exceptions
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs and penal interest should be awarded
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the parties justified departure from the standard basis of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, down to 18 October 2006, the costs of both claimant and first and second defendants should be paid out of the estate as the testator's conduct was the primary cause of the litigation. From 19 October 2006 to 26 February 2007, each party should bear their own costs as the circumstances reasonably led to investigation. From 27 February 2007 onwards, the first and second defendants should pay the claimant's costs on the standard basis, as the litigation became ordinary adversarial litigation and the defendants persisted in their defence despite strong evidence against them. No indemnity costs or penal interest were justified as the defendants' conduct was not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned in three stages: (a) to 18 October 2006, costs of claimant and first and second defendants paid out of the estate; (b) 19 October 2006 to 26 February 2007, no order as to costs; (c) from 27 February 2007, first and second defendants to pay claimant's costs on the standard basis. Additional orders...

Orders

  • Costs of claimant and first and second defendants to 18 October 2006 paid out of the estate.
  • No order as to costs from 19 October 2006 to 26 February 2007, except as specified.