News << back to latest news

Recent costs order discourages ‘no holds barred’ approach from litigants in an Inheritance Act claim

A recent ruling in the England & Wales High Court (EWHC) has aimed to discourage litigants in Inheritance Act 1975 claims from adopting a ‘no holds barred’ strategy.

The case in question, Lilleyman vs Lilleyman (2012 EWHC 1056 Ch), concerned a dispute where a widowed stepmother, Barbara Lilleyman, received only an annuity, a small number of chattels and limited occupation rights in two homes from the multi-million pound estate of her  late husband, Roy Lilleyman. The rest of the estate went to the deceased’s  two sons from the deceased’s first marriage.

Mrs Lilleyman made an application under the Inheritance Act that she had not received reasonable provision in the will of the deceased. The stepsons passionately contested the claim but ultimately the applicant was successfully granted full title to the two homes, though her claim for a proportion of the cash was rejected.

Numerous out-of-court settlement offers were made by the stepsons to the stepmother but these were rejected as Mrs Lilleyman did not feel they were sufficient. Mrs Lilleyman eventually received less than the highest settlement offer. Usually, when an out of court offer is rejected then less than the offer is awarded by the court, the applicant is liable for both parties legal costs after the offer was made. In this case the judge ordered Mrs Lilleyman pay 80% of the stepsons legal costs after the rejection of the offer, leaving the stepsons liable for 20%.

The reasoning behind this ruling was that the costs in the case had become a focal point for both parties and that this was lengthening proceedings and obstructing the issue of settlement. The judge had also stated that he wished to apportion some of the fees to the stepson to impress upon them that he took a dim view of their approach to the proceedings. Only at the very end of the matter did they admit the will did not make reasonable provision, as well as making what the judge described as ‘irrelevant accusations’ throughout proceedings which did not help matters.

Emma Hardwidge, Head of the Private Client department at RLE Law stated ‘this case clearly shows the court’s approach to cases of this nature and that the court will depart from the normal rules about costs if they think either party’s conduct has been inappropriate.  Applicants and claimant’s must seriously consider sensible offers of settlement or face a costs order being made against them – this should be kept under review throughout the case’.