Historically it was more common for the cost of estate disputes to be borne by the Estate. The view, as expressed by the Court of Appeal in Keelan v Peach being that the courts are reluctant to exacerbate family rifts with personal costs orders.
However, as litigation costs balloon, increasingly costs are following the event. Also, where an estate is small, it is important that matters be kept proportionate. Consider the case of Shovelar v Lane where the costs for the sucessful party in a will dispute regarding a failed mutual will arrangement were more than 2.6 times the amount of the estate in question.
Shovelar v Lane highlights the importance of taking a principled approach to costs. Things to keep in mind with estate litigation costs:
Where strongly held views are maintained, the importance of maintaining a sense of perspective cannot be over-estimated. Where parties to a dispute reach their own resolution, such that it is no appropriate for “costs to follow the event”, all parties being sucessful to a certain extent, it is important to appreciate that liely, no more than scale costs will be recoverable from the estate (apart from the trustees / executors, who will more likely recover full costs where a ‘watching brief” has been maintained: see Mather v Mortlock.
Executors who fail to stand aside when their own interests conflict with their fiduciary obligations can find themselves liable for costs incurred both as an executor and trustee and further costs incurred as a non-party following removal. See Courteney v Pratley where costs with a 50% up-lift were ordered against Mr Courteney who the court found to be untruthful, to have failed to have disclosed estate assets and to have contributed unnecessarily to the time and expense of the proceedings.