In a recent High Court judgment, the Court ruled on the issue of costs following a claimant’s application to amend her Reply to a claim to remove the allegation that the defendant was fraudulent in the creation of two of the deceased’s Wills. While the primary matter revolved around the claimant’s request to withdraw an allegation of fraud, the case provides valuable insight into the Court’s approach to legal amendments and the associated costs.
Background
The claimant, the widow of the deceased, Stephen George Packer, issued a claim stating that her late husband died intestate in 2022. The defendant, the deceased’s sister, contended that Stephen had made two Wills in 2017 and 2022, appointing her as the executrix. However, the original Wills could not be located.
Initially, the claimant’s Reply included an allegation that the defendant had fraudulently created these Wills. However, after the defendant provided metadata confirming that the Wills had been created at the times she had claimed, the claimant sought to amend her Reply, removing the fraud allegation. While the defendant agreed to the amendment, she did dispute the claimant’s application for costs associated with the amendment.
The Court’s ruling
The central issue in this case was not the amendment of the Reply itself but the claimant’s application for costs. The Court followed the well-established principle that an applicant seeking to amend their pleadings generally must bear the other party’s costs of the amendment unless there is a compelling reason to depart from this rule.
In this case, the Court found no good reason to deviate from the general rule. Despite the claimant initially pleading fraud based on the available information, the allegation was later withdrawn after the defendant provided evidence in the form of metadata showing the legitimacy of the Wills. The Court took the view that the claimant had not presented sufficient evidence to support the serious allegation, further noting the seriousness of a fraud claim and the requirement of specific and credible evidence. Allegations of fraud cannot simply be made without a factual basis, and doing so could result in significant legal consequences, including cost penalties.
The Court emphasised that the claimant’s conduct in asserting the fraud claim without a solid foundation was not reasonable. Although the claimant had initially acted on the information available at the time, the subsequent withdrawal of the allegation indicated that the fraud claim had been made prematurely. The Court found that the claimant should bear the costs of the amendment to reflect this conduct.
However, the Court also declined to order the claimant to pay a proportion of the defendant’s costs incurred prior to the amendment application. The Court reasoned that the overall claim remained largely unchanged, and there was not enough evidence to determine an appropriate cost apportionment for the period before the amendment.
Key takeaways
1. Cost implications for amendments: In civil litigation, parties seeking to amend their pleadings must typically bear the costs of the amendment, unless there are strong reasons to deviate from this principle. This serves as a reminder to carefully consider the timing and basis of any changes to claims.
2. Seriousness of allegations: Allegations of fraud or other serious claims must be specifically pleaded with supporting evidence. A failure to provide adequate evidence can result in cost consequences and damage the credibility of the party making such claims.
3. Amendments to pleadings: While amendments are generally allowed to correct or refine pleadings, they are not an opportunity to retroactively introduce baseless claims. Legal practitioners must guide their clients to ensure that any changes made to pleadings are based on the facts and evidence at hand.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is a Trainee Solicitor in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, please contact Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us