Walters & Anor v Smee & Anor

Walters & Anor v Smee & Anor

The litigation was conducted as ordinary hostile litigation throughout, and the Smees, as unsuccessful parties, should bear the costs. The exceptions to the normal rule do not apply as the Smees actively contested the claim and made allegations against the Walters, which were disproved.

Parties
Claimant: Alan Walters; Claimant: Karen Walters; Defendant: Geoffrey Smee; Defendant: Enid Smee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Probate / Costs Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Costs awarded to the claimants against the defendants on the standard basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Will Validity, Proprietary Estoppel
Probate Civil Procedure Costs Will Validity Proprietary Estoppel

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

Parties

Alan Walters

Claimant

Karen Walters

Claimant

Geoffrey Smee

Defendant

Enid Smee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate / Costs Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event or be paid out of the estate in probate litigation
  2. 2 Whether exceptions to the normal costs rule apply in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The litigation was conducted as ordinary hostile litigation throughout, and the Smees, as unsuccessful parties, should bear the costs. The exceptions to the normal rule do not apply as the Smees actively contested the claim and made allegations against the Walters, which were disproved.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the claimants against the defendants on the standard basis.

Orders

  • The Smees shall pay the Walters’ costs of the claim and counterclaim on the standard basis.