Twist v Tye: 1902

The three plaintiff executors, who had unsuccessfully propounded a will, were also residuary legatees under the will, had themselves managed the deceased’s affairs before she made it, and had had ample opportunity of forming an opinion as to her testamentary capacity.
Held: They had not acted improperly, but they had taken a view about the testatrix which turned out to be mistaken. The executors had taken a view and acted upon it, in circumstances where they stood to benefit if the will was upheld. There was accordingly nothing to warrant a departure from the general rule that costs should follow the event.


Sir Gorell Barnes


[1902] P 92


DistinguishedBoughton v Knight 1873
The jury found that the testator had not been of sound mind, memory and understanding when he made the will propounded by the plaintiffs.
Held: The court contrasted a person of ‘sound mind’ with one suffering from ‘delusions’. The amount and . .

Cited by:

CitedKostic 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 . .
EndorsedRe Plant deceased 1926
The court considered whether the executor should have his costs out of the estate unless he had acted unreasonably. Scrutton LJ warned: ‘I should be reluctant to do anything to create the idea that unsuccessful litigants might get their costs out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.263525