Ashok Kapoor v Baltaj Johal
[2024] EWHC 551 (KB)
Srendarjit Kaur Jassal v Sajad Ali Shah & Anor
3 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2214 (Ch)
High Court
A partner sued her deceased partner's family for a share of the estate. The judge included her legal bills in the award. The family appealed, and the higher court said legal costs should be decided separately, not lumped together with the main award. They corrected the amount and ordered who should pay whose legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Fiaz Ali Shah left his estate to his son Sajad, excluding his long-term partner Srendarjit Kaur Jassal.
- •Srendarjit claimed provision from Fiaz's estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
- •The Deputy Master awarded Srendarjit a lump sum including her litigation costs.
- •Sajad and Shabana appealed, arguing that litigation costs should be dealt with separately under the CPR.
Legal Principles
In CPR proceedings, the court usually determines the substantive claim first, then considers costs separately.
CPR 44.2(1)
Under the 1975 Act, the court must consider the claimant's financial needs, which can include litigation costs.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 3
Appellate courts are cautious about allowing new points on appeal not raised at trial, especially if it necessitates new evidence or would have altered the trial's course.
Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360; Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh [2019] EWCA Civ 1337
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The court held that litigation costs should not have been included in the substantive award under the 1975 Act, as this is inconsistent with the usual CPR practice. The court also found that the point raised on appeal was not a new point, considering the unusual nature of the Deputy Master’s decision.
The lump sum awarded to Srendarjit was reduced to exclude litigation costs.
Following the established CPR practice, costs should be dealt with separately and subsequently to the substantive relief.
Sajad and Shabana were ordered to pay Srendarjit's costs (excluding the appeal costs).
Srendarjit was the successful party in the main proceedings.
Srendarjit was ordered to pay Sajad and Shabana’s costs of the appeal.
Sajad and Shabana were successful in their appeal, and the appeal was actively opposed.