The Supreme Court has allowed Anastasia Elliott’s appeal over costs in a probate dispute, awarding the plaintiffs their full costs from the estate of Nicholas Roche, including the costs of the appeal. The appeal concerned costs only; the High Court’s findings on the will’s validity and the absence of undue influence were not challenged.
Roche, a bachelor who died in 2003, left an estate valued at about €1.5 million, including a residential farm. His will, made in February 2003, named his nephew Robert Stamp as executor and principal beneficiary. Roche’s sister Anastasia Elliott brought proceedings with her son, acting under a power of attorney. Another sister, Bridie Stamp, was a defendant.
The plaintiffs initially disputed due execution, testamentary capacity and undue influence. Before the High Court hearing, they withdrew the first two claims and proceeded on undue influence alone. The High Court rejected that claim, finding the will had been validly executed, Roche had testamentary capacity and neither defendant had procured it through undue influence or duress. It ordered that the defendants receive their full costs from the estate and that the plaintiffs receive one-third of their costs from it.
In the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that the established probate costs principles entitled them to full costs because the proceedings had been brought reasonably and in good faith. The defendants argued that an unsuccessful party should not receive estate costs where an executor had disclosed evidence before trial and the claim was maintained after it should have been abandoned.
The court held that the High Court had not explained why it awarded only one-third of the plaintiffs’ costs. It accepted that disclosure by an estate’s representatives may, in a suitable case, make it unreasonable to continue proceedings and affect costs. But it was not satisfied that the information disclosed here addressed all concerns the plaintiffs could reasonably have had.
The court pointed to Roche’s poor health, his lack of any earlier will, the substantial change from the expected intestacy distribution, the circumstances in which arrangements for the will were made, and evidence from a sister about his literacy and ability to make a detailed will. It also considered the medical reports limited support for capacity and resistance to influence. The judgment stressed that these observations did not amount to a finding of undue influence or criticism of the solicitor’s legal executive, and that the High Court’s findings on the will stood.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court replaced the one-third costs award with an order for the plaintiffs’ full costs from the estate, including the appeal costs.