Kershaw v Roberts & Anor
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant challenged a ruling involving a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, arguing that a prior directions hearing was a Case Management Conference (CMC) requiring respondents to submit a cost budget. Judge Hughes ruled the hearing was not a CMC, requiring no budget submission. Appellant's appeal was rejected, holding the hearing was not a CMC, validating procedural judge discretion and cost management rules. Judge Hughes' costs order was partially upheld, requiring the claimant to pay half of the hearing costs.
Judgment
Mr Justice Hickinbottom:
Introduction
This appeal raises a number of issues concerning claims brought under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”); and, in particular, the case management and costs management of such claims.
The Appellant Claimant appeals the judgment and order of His Honour Judge Philip Hughes of 30 January 2014, in which he found that an earlier hearing in this Part 8 claim was not a case management conference (“CMC”) and therefore the Respondent Defendants were under no obligation to serve a costs budget seven days in advance of it. It had been contended by the Claimant that that hearing was the first CMC and, as the Defendants had not served a costs budget seven days before, their costs budget should be restricted to applicable court fees. The Claimant renews that submission in this appeal, raising the general issue of whether the first hearing in a Part 8 claim (alternatively, the first directions hearing in such a claim) is necessarily a CMC, triggering the obligation to serve a costs budget. Those issues are important in this claim – but generally, for reasons to which I shall come at the end of this judgment, they are likely soon to be of historical interest only.
In this judgment, all references to “Rules” are to specific rules in the CPR unless otherwise indicated.
Factual Background
Miss Jane Jones died intestate on 3 November 2011, the Claimant Ian Kershaw having lived with her for some years before her death. In these proceedings, the Claimant claims reasonable financial provision from her estate, under section 1(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”). The Defendants are the deceased’s sister, who is her personal representative; and her son who is, subject to this claim, the beneficiary under the intestacy. I am not concerned with the substance of the claim – and nothing I say in this judgment should be taken as offering any view on the merits – but I have read the evidence lodged and some of the correspondence, which shows that there are significant issues of fact as to the Claimant’s relationship with the deceased. It also discloses acrimony between the parties, which, sadly, is only too common in cases such as this.
The claim was issued in Taunton County Court on 13 September 2013, using the Part 8 procedure. A claim under the 1975 Act must be brought as a Part 8 claim (Rule 57.16(1)).
On 23 September, the county court sent out to all parties a “Notice of