Sarant v Sarant (No 2)

The matter before the court was a family provision claim brought by the Plaintiff, Sarant, against the Defendants, Sarant, following the death of the former. The Plaintiff sought a provision out of the deceased’s estate, which was primarily constituted by the matrimonial home. The Plaintiff, who had been married to the deceased for an extended period, was largely successful in their claim, and the court recognised the importance of the family provision legislation in protecting family members from financial destitution. The court was required to decide whether the Plaintiff should bear the Defendants’ costs despite largely prevailing, given that the Plaintiff had received the deceased’s interest in the matrimonial home, subject to certain conditions.

The court examined the principles and discretion available in family provision claims, particularly focusing on the allocation of costs. The court noted that the general rule is for the unsuccessful party to bear the costs of the successful party, but this rule may be subject to discretion in family provision matters. The court recognised that the Defendants had defended the proceedings in their own self-interest, and their defence was ultimately unsuccessful. Additionally, the Defendants had prosecuted a cross-claim that also failed. The court determined that the Defendants' actions in pursuing their own interests justified an order for costs against them, even though the Plaintiff had largely succeeded in their claim.

The court concluded that the Defendants should bear their own costs of the proceedings, given the Plaintiff's success in the main claim and the Defendants' unsuccessful defence and cross-claim. The court also noted that no other asset was available to satisfy a costs order against the Plaintiff, and any shortfall in the funds due to the Defendants would result in the sale of the matrimonial home. The court exercised its discretion to order that the Defendants pay all of their own costs of the proceedings, recognising the importance of the family provision legislation in protecting the interests of family members.

The final orders of the court were that the Defendants pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the family provision claim and that the Defendants pay their own costs of the proceedings. The court also made an order that if the funds due to the Defendants were not paid, the matrimonial home would be sold to satisfy the outstanding amount.