Knox v Peacock (No 2)

In Knox v Peacock (No 2), the respondents, who were beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate, sought to challenge the testamentary capacity of the deceased. The respondents argued that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when he made his will. The appellants, who were other beneficiaries of the estate, successfully opposed the challenge, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellants' costs. The respondents appealed the costs order on the basis that the appellants had made an unreasonable Calderbank offer and that the challenge to the deceased's capacity was reasonable. The appellants cross-appealed on the basis that the respondents' costs should be paid out of the estate because their challenge to the deceased's capacity was unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondents' costs should be paid out of the estate. This hinged on whether the respondents' challenge to the deceased's testamentary capacity was reasonable. The court also had to determine whether the appellants' Calderbank offer was reasonable. A secondary issue was whether the respondents' costs should be paid by the appellants if the challenge was found to be reasonable.

The court found that the respondents' challenge to the deceased's testamentary capacity was not reasonable. The court found that the challenge was not based on any new evidence, and that the respondents had not provided any cogent argument as to why the deceased lacked capacity. The court found that the appellants' Calderbank offer was reasonable, and that the respondents' costs should not be paid out of the estate. The court found that the respondents' costs should be paid by the appellants because the respondents' challenge was not reasonable. The court found that the appellants were entitled to their costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court ordered that the respondents pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. The court found that the respondents' challenge to the deceased's testamentary capacity was not reasonable and that the appellants' Calderbank offer was reasonable. The court found that the respondents' costs should be paid by the appellants, and that the respondents were not entitled to their costs out of the estate. The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal.