The next of kin of the deceased, who had unsuccessfully opposed the will in a testamentary suit tried before Byles J and a jury, applied for their costs to be paid out of the estate.
Held: Sir James Wilde said: ‘The basis of all rule on this subject should rest upon the degree of blame to be imputed to the respective parties; and the question who shall bear the costs? will be answered with this other question, whose fault was it that they were incurred? If the fault lies at the door of the testator, his testamentary papers being surrounded with confusion or uncertainty in law or fact, it is just that the costs of ascertaining his will should be defrayed by his estate.
But if the testator be not in fault, and those benefited by the will not to blame, to whom is the litigation to be attributed? In the litigation entertained by other Courts, this question is in general easily solved by the presumption that the losing party must needs be in the wrong, and, if in the wrong, the cause of a needless contest. But other considerations arise in this Court. It is the function of this Court to investigate the execution of a will and the capacity of the maker, and having done so, to ascertain and declare what is the will of the testator. If fair circumstances of doubt or suspicion arise to obscure this question, a judicial enquiry is in a manner forced upon it. Those who are instrumental in bringing about and subserving this enquiry are not wholly in the wrong, even if they do not succeed. And so it comes that this Court has been in the practice on such occasions of deviating from the common rule in other Courts, and of relieving the losing party from costs, if chargeable with no other blame than that of having failed in a suit which was justified by good and sufficient grounds for doubt.
From these considerations, the court deduces the two following rules for its future guidance: first, if the cause of litigation takes its origin in the fault of the testator or those interested in the residue, the costs may properly be paid out of the estate; secondly, if there be sufficient and reasonable ground, looking to the knowledge and means of knowledge of the opposing party, to question whether the execution of the will or the capacity of the testator, or to put forward a charge of undue influence or fraud, the losing party may properly be relieved from the costs of his successful opponent.’
Sir James Wilde
(1863) 3 Sw and Tr 275, [1863] EngR 1027, (1863) 164 ER 1280
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Mitchell And Mitchell v Gard And Kingwell 27-May-1862
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Kostic v Chaplin and others ChD 7-Dec-2007
The claimant had brought contentious probate proceedings, and succeeded in establishing that the deceased had not had capacity to make the will. The defendant beneficiaries appealed an order for costs.
Held: The costs of the trial itself . .
Cited – Re Cutliffe’s Estate CA 1958
In attacking the will, the unsuccessful defendants had pleaded undue influence as well as lack of due execution and want of knowledge and approval, but their evidence had been disbelieved. They complained that in awarding costs against them the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.263523
