Wylde v Culver: ChD 12 Apr 2006

The claimant sought to discontinue his probate action on the day of trial, and an order as to costs.
Held: The discontinuance should be allowed, there being no public interest to be served in a continuance. As to costs ‘in probate actions there is no stated presumption that a discontinuing claimant should pay the costs down to the discontinuance. However I approach the question of costs on the basis that the Claimant, in seeking to discontinue, should ordinarily pay the costs, and that the onus lies with him to show why there should be some different order. Shortly stated, in the absence of some good reason for a different order, it can be taken that the action was wrongly brought. This, after all, would be the starting point if the action went to trial and was dismissed. ‘ In this case, the claimant had been reasonable in acting on the issues on which the action was based, and he should not be ordered to pay the costs on the discontinuance. No order for costs was made.
George Bompas QC
[2006] EWHC 923 (Ch), [2006] 1 WLR 2674, [2006] 4 All ER 345
England and Wales
CitedGreen v Briscoe 9-May-2005
The Court had dismissed an action brought to obtain an order pronouncing against a will, revocation of the probate granted in respect of the will and a declaration of intestacy. The defendant executor had counterclaimed for a grant of probate in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 January 2021; Ref: scu.241462