Kenny v Isaacs & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1118 (28 June 2001)

Kenny v Isaacs & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1118 (28 June 2001)

There was no procedural unfairness or mistrial; Mr Rice-Hunt's lack of preparation and legal representation was due to his own choices and overconfidence, not any fault of the executor or the court. The evidence that could have been called would not have materially affected the outcome. The judge's exercise of discretion on costs, including the date from which costs were payable, was within the proper ambit of discretion.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1118
Parties
Appellant: Alan Rice-Hunt; Respondent/defendant: Jill Kenny; Claimant/executor: Roger Isaacs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Probate Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Probate and Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Validity of Wills, Costs Orders, Executor's Duties, Appeals Procedure
Probate Civil Procedure Testamentary Capacity Validity of Wills Costs Orders Executor's Duties Appeals Procedure

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

Parties

Alan Rice-Hunt

Appellant

Jill Kenny

Respondent/defendant

Roger Isaacs

Claimant/executor

Procedural Posture

Probate Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Probate and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial process resulted in severe prejudice to Mr Rice-Hunt justifying a retrial
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in costs orders, particularly regarding the effect of Calderbank offers

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural unfairness or mistrial; Mr Rice-Hunt's lack of preparation and legal representation was due to his own choices and overconfidence, not any fault of the executor or the court. The evidence that could have been called would not have materially affected the outcome. The judge's exercise of discretion on costs, including the date from which costs were payable, was within the proper ambit of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £8,000 against Mr Rice-Hunt
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £100