Benest v Syvret [2012] JRC 079A (17 April 2012)

Benest v Syvret [2012] JRC 079A (17 April 2012)

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the Applicants' grounds demonstrated a realistic prospect of success; the trial judge properly exercised discretion, considered all relevant facts and legal principles, and each reason for the costs order was independently sufficient.

Citation
[2012] JRC 079A
Parties
Applicants: Applicants; Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Mr Simon David Benest; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (costs Order) / Post Judgment, Application for Leave to Appeal Costs Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Costs Order, Discretion in Costs Awards, Executor Liability for Costs, Legal Aid Relevance to Costs, Discontinuance of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Probate Costs Leave to Appeal Costs Order Discretion in Costs Awards Executor Liability for Costs Legal Aid Relevance to Costs Discontinuance of Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicants

Applicants

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Mr Simon David Benest

Defendant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (costs Order) / Post Judgment, Application for Leave to Appeal Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a costs order alone
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected himself in the exercise of discretion on costs
  3. 3 Whether legal aid status is relevant to a costs order in non-matrimonial cases

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the Applicants' grounds demonstrated a realistic prospect of success; the trial judge properly exercised discretion, considered all relevant facts and legal principles, and each reason for the costs order was independently sufficient.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order for costs on the discontinuance of the two sets of proceedings stands