Sherrington & Anor v Sherrington

Sherrington & Anor v Sherrington

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in treating the applicants as the substantive losers of the 1975 Act application. The late concessions by the respondent, reflected in undertakings, gave the applicants substantive relief and made them the substantive winners for costs purposes. The applicants were entitled to 40% of their costs of the 1975 Act application, while the respondent was entitled to all her costs of the contractual claim. The applicants' conduct justified a reduction from full costs, but not as much as the trial judge ordered.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Gloria Sherrington; Appellant/claimant: Ramon Sherrington; Respondent/defendant: Yvonne Sherrington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/probate) / Appeal From Costs Order After Failed Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and Contractual Claims
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Out of Time Applications, Inheritance Claims, Contractual Obligations Post Divorce
Family Law Probate Civil Procedure Costs Orders Out of Time Applications Inheritance Claims Contractual Obligations Post Divorce

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloria Sherrington

Appellant/claimant

Ramon Sherrington

Appellant/claimant

Yvonne Sherrington

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/probate) / Appeal From Costs Order After Failed Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and Contractual Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding only 25% of costs to the respondent after late concessions by the respondent led to substantive relief for the applicants under the 1975 Act claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should be regarded as the substantive winners for costs purposes given the undertakings obtained during trial
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct justified any reduction in their costs entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in treating the applicants as the substantive losers of the 1975 Act application. The late concessions by the respondent, reflected in undertakings, gave the applicants substantive relief and made them the substantive winners for costs purposes. The applicants were entitled to 40% of their costs of the 1975 Act application, while the respondent was entitled to all her costs of the contractual claim. The applicants' conduct justified a reduction from full costs, but not as much as the trial judge ordered.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Applicants (Gloria and Ramon Sherrington) to receive 40% of their costs of the 1975 Act application
  • Respondent (Yvonne Sherrington) to receive all her costs of the contractual claim