Kershaw v Roberts & Anor [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch) (10 April 2014)

Kershaw v Roberts & Anor [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch) (10 April 2014)

The first hearing in a Part 8 claim is not necessarily a CMC unless the court has specifically allocated the claim to the multi-track. Therefore, the obligation to serve a costs budget was not triggered prior to the Taunton hearing, and the Rule 3.14 sanction did not apply. Judge Hughes was correct in his ruling.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch)
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 From County Court (wrexham) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's appeal refused; Defendants' cross-appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Case Management Conferences, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, Civil Procedure Rules Part 8, Costs Budgets
Civil Procedure Inheritance Law Costs Management Case Management Conferences Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 Civil Procedure Rules Part 8 Costs Budgets

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 4 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 From County Court (wrexham) / Appeal Judgment

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 due to alleged late service

Ratio Decidendi

The first hearing in a Part 8 claim is not necessarily a CMC unless the court has specifically allocated the claim to the multi-track. Therefore, the obligation to serve a costs budget was not triggered prior to the Taunton hearing, and the Rule 3.14 sanction did not apply. Judge Hughes was correct in his ruling.

Court Disposition

Claimant's appeal refused; Defendants' cross-appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal against Judge Hughes' findings and substantive order refused.
  • Defendants' cross-appeal allowed: Claimant ordered to pay half of Defendants' costs of and occasioned by the 30 January 2014 hearing; other half costs in the claim.