Sherborne Estate (No 2): Vanvalen v Neaves

In the case of Sherborne Estate (No 2): Vanvalen v Neaves, the Family Court was tasked with addressing several complex issues concerning the distribution of costs in a Family Provision Act claim. The dispute arose from a claim brought by the applicant, Vanvalen, against the respondent, Neaves, who was a beneficiary of a deceased estate. The successful claimants argued that the costs incurred were disproportionate to the result achieved, while the respondent contested the appropriateness of a costs capping order under the Civil Procedure Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent, who was the unsuccessful party in the Family Provision Act claim, could apply for a capping order under section 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act to limit the costs that the successful claimants could recover. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the rejection of a Calderbank offer by the successful claimants was unreasonable, given the inherent difficulties in predicting the success of Family Provision Act claims. The court also examined whether, in light of the impecunious status of the applicant, justice required a departure from the usual costs order.

The court found that the costs incurred by the successful claimants were indeed disproportionate to the result achieved. It held that the respondent could apply for a capping order under section 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, despite being the unsuccessful party. The court reasoned that the particular difficulties in predicting the success of Family Provision Act claims justified the rejection of the Calderbank offer. Furthermore, the court concluded that, due to the applicant's impecuniosity, the usual costs order should be departed from, and an appropriate costs order was made in the circumstances.

The final orders of the court included a capping order limiting the costs that the successful claimants could recover, and a costs order tailored to the financial circumstances of the applicant. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering the unique factors of each case when determining the appropriateness of costs orders in Family Provision Act claims.