Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

JULIE DAWN COLBOURNE v SIMON MARK COOKE & Ors

[2022] EWHC 3029 (Ch)
A daughter was cut out of her mother's will. Her lawyer missed the deadline to challenge the will, but the judge said it's okay because the mistake wasn't the daughter's fault and she has a good chance of winning. The judge also said it's better to hear her case now rather than cause more delay and expense.

Key Facts

  • Applicant (Ms. Colbourne) seeks permission to bring an Inheritance Act claim out of time.
  • Claim deadline was March 20, 2022.
  • Application for extension was made May 13, 2022.
  • Deceased's will left the residuary estate (£195,000) to the 3rd respondent (Ms. Collier-White), disinheriting the applicant.
  • Applicant alleges the deceased was vulnerable when the will was made and that the respondent took financial advantage.
  • Applicant's solicitor attributes the missed deadline to a technological malfunction.
  • Respondent argues the court lacks jurisdiction because the application wasn't made via a claim form, as per established practice.

Legal Principles

Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 governs applications for orders under section 2, stating that applications outside the six-month period require court permission.

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Section 4

Section 20(1)(a) of the Inheritance Act protects personal representatives from liability for distributing an estate after the six-month period if they couldn't have foreseen a court permitting a late application.

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Section 20(1)(a)

The court has unfettered discretion to extend time under the Inheritance Act, to be exercised judicially.

Begum v Ahmed [2019] EWCA Civ 1794

In considering extensions of time, relevant factors include promptness of application, negotiations within the time limit, estate distribution, alternative remedies, and the merit of the underlying claim.

Re: Salmon, Coard v National Westminster Bank Ltd [1981] CH167; Berger v Berger [2013] EWCA Civ 105

A potential claim against a solicitor for negligence in missing a deadline is a factor but doesn't outweigh other considerations.

Re B [2000] Ch 206; Adams v Schofield [2004] WTLR 1049

The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

Civil Procedure Rules

Outcomes

The court has jurisdiction to hear the application despite it not being made via a claim form.

While not following established practice, there's no legal authority preventing this approach; upholding the application aligns with the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly.

Permission to bring the Inheritance Act claim out of time was granted.

Considering the seven factors from *Berger v Berger*, the court found the applicant acted promptly after discovering the missed deadline, the estate hadn't been distributed, and the applicant had a strong arguable case and would suffer significant prejudice if the claim was dismissed. The respondent's prejudice was minimal.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.