Lumb v Lumb [2023] EWHC 2052 (Ch) (09 August 2023)

Lumb v Lumb [2023] EWHC 2052 (Ch) (09 August 2023)

The Defendant, having given notice under CPR r57.7(5)(a) and not advancing a positive case, was entitled to costs protection unless there were no reasonable grounds for opposing the will. The Judge found that, although the Defendant's grounds lacked a real prospect of success, they were not unreasonable to raise in the context of probate proceedings. Therefore, no order for costs against the Defendant was appropriate under CPR r57.7(5)(b).

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2052 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Lumb; Defendant/respondent: Stuart Lumb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Probate Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs in Probate Proceedings, Summary Judgment, Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, CPR R57.7(5)
Probate Civil Procedure Costs in Probate Proceedings Summary Judgment Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval CPR R57.7(5)

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Lumb

Claimant/appellant

Stuart Lumb

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Probate Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant had reasonable grounds for opposing the will under CPR r57.7(5)(b) and thus should be protected from an adverse costs order despite losing on summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's conduct in the proceedings disentitled him to costs protection under CPR r57.7(5)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant, having given notice under CPR r57.7(5)(a) and not advancing a positive case, was entitled to costs protection unless there were no reasonable grounds for opposing the will. The Judge found that, although the Defendant's grounds lacked a real prospect of success, they were not unreasonable to raise in the context of probate proceedings. Therefore, no order for costs against the Defendant was appropriate under CPR r57.7(5)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs; the costs order of the Deputy District Judge is upheld.