Re Williams; Smith v Thwaites (No 2)

In the case of Re Williams; Smith v Thwaites (No 2), the plaintiff sought further family provision from the estate of the deceased. The defendant offered a compromise, which was marginally less than the amount awarded by the court. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal issues surrounding the costs associated with the plaintiff's claim.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff's costs were reasonable and proportionate given the outcome of the case, and whether the overarching obligations required an investigation into the plaintiff's costs. The court considered the impact of Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 26.08(3), which provided that the plaintiff was to receive costs of the proceeding as the court thought fit. The court also considered the Civil Procedure Act 2010, ss 24 and 29, which required that costs be reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the conduct of the parties.

The court determined that the effect of r 26.08(3) operated harshly on both the plaintiff and the defendant, and that it was necessary to investigate the plaintiff's costs to ensure that they were reasonable and proportionate. The court found that the plaintiff's costs were excessive and not proportionate to the issue in dispute, and ordered that the plaintiff pay a portion of the defendant's costs. The court also noted that the overarching obligations required that costs be considered in the context of the conduct of the parties and the issues in dispute.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay a portion of the defendant's costs, and that the plaintiff's costs be reduced to a reasonable and proportionate amount. The court emphasised the importance of considering the overarching obligations and the conduct of the parties when determining the appropriate costs in a family provision claim.