Trinder v Ciniglio (No 2)

The case of Trinder v Ciniglio (No 2) involves a dispute over the validity of a will executed by the deceased, Steven Thomas Trinder, and the associated costs incurred during the litigation. The Plaintiff, who was the executor of the March 2016 will, propounded this will over the August 2016 will. The Defendants contested the validity of the March 2016 will and argued that the August 2016 will was the last valid will of the deceased. The dispute also included claims regarding the testamentary capacity of the deceased and undue influence in relation to a gift made in September 2017. The court had to determine whether the Plaintiff reasonably propounded the March 2016 will, the reasonableness of the costs incurred, and whether the Plaintiff should pay the Defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centered on the validity of the wills, the testamentary capacity of the deceased, and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties. The court had to consider the reasonableness of the Plaintiff's actions in propounding the March 2016 will, the validity of the claims made, and the conduct of the litigation. The court also examined the offers made under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) and Calderbank and whether the Plaintiff's rejection of these offers was justified. The Defendants sought an indemnity costs order, arguing that the Plaintiff's litigation was without merit and that the Plaintiff should bear the costs of the unsuccessful claims.

In its judgment, the court found that the Plaintiff did not have reasonable grounds to propound the March 2016 will over the August 2016 will. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not conduct a proper inquiry into the deceased's capacity at the time of the August will, despite the lack of access to medical records. The allegations of lack of capacity were largely based on the deceased's terminal illness and other factors that did not necessarily indicate a lack of mental capacity. The court also highlighted that the Plaintiff had engaged in negotiations with the deceased after the execution of the August will, further undermining the claims of lack of capacity. The court concluded that the Plaintiff pursued the proceedings on a tenuous basis without proper grounds.

The court ordered that the Plaintiff pay the Defendants' costs on a standard basis up until 4 March 2019 and on an indemnity basis from that date, except for the claim concerning the September 2017 gift, which was to be paid on the standard basis. The court also ordered that the Grant of Probate be returned to the Defendants as the Executors of the Estate under the August 2016 will. This decision reflects the court's view that the Plaintiff's litigation was not well-founded and that the Defendants should be compensated for the costs incurred as a result of the Plaintiff's actions.