After a contested application, the court pronounced in favour of the will.
Held: Sir James Hannen did not agree that the first rule or exception applied only in cases where the state in which the deceased left his papers had given rise to the litigation, and said the reason why costs were payable out of the estate was: ‘because the conduct of [the] testator himself caused the litigation.’ and
‘That principle having once been extracted from the decisions, we should no longer slavishly confine ourselves to precisely the same state of facts in applying it, but should apply it to all cases to which it is fairly applicable. The principle being as I have stated, the question to be determined in each case is this: Is the testator, by reason of his conduct, to be considered the cause of the reasonable litigation which has occurred after his death as to the validity of his will?’
. . and ‘Where the facts show that neither the testator nor the persons interested in the residue have been to blame, but where the opponents of the will have been led reasonably to the bona fide belief that there was good ground for impeaching the will, there will be no order as to costs. Of course the opponents must have taken all proper steps to inform themselves as to the facts of the case, but if, having done so, they bona fide believe in the existence of a state of things which, if it did exist, would justify litigation, then, although no blame should attach to the testator or to the executors and persons interested in the residue, each party must bear his own costs.’
The costs of an unsuccessful opposition to a will must be paid out of the estate in cases where the testator, by his own conduct, and habits, and mode of life, has given the opponents of the will reasonable ground for questioning his testamentary capacity.
Judges:
Sir James Hannen
Citations:
(1873) LR 3 PandD 28
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
WIlls and Probate, Costs
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.263524