Harrisson v Skinner (No 2)

In the case of Harrisson v Skinner (No 2), the plaintiffs, who were the children of the deceased, sought a family provision order from the deceased's estate. The estate was valued at a relatively small amount, and the court was required to decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an order for family provision from the estate. The defendants, the executors of the estate, argued that the plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed and that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a family provision order, and if not, whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be departed from in light of the overall justice of the case. The court had to consider the factors relevant to whether to make a family provision order, including the reasonable financial needs of the plaintiffs and any other circumstances that the court considered relevant. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiffs' claim was vexatious or frivolous, and whether the plaintiffs' conduct during the proceedings warranted an order for costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a family provision order from the estate and that the defendants' application for costs should be granted. The court considered that the plaintiffs' claim was not well-founded and that the plaintiffs' conduct during the proceedings was unreasonable and vexatious. The court held that the overall justice of the case required the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs. The court considered that the small value of the estate and the plaintiffs' failure to provide adequate justification for their claim warranted an order for costs against the plaintiffs. The court emphasised that the decision to order costs was not based on the financial circumstances of the parties but on the overall justice of the case.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the unsuccessful family provision claim and the costs of the costs application. The court held that the order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, given the small value of the estate and the plaintiffs' unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.