# Cost of contesting will



## Trudee (12 May 2008)

Is it correct that a person contesting will is not liable for costs if courts decide against claim, in other words is a will contestant never liable for costs, will the cost always have to be met by estate?


----------



## Whiskey (12 May 2008)

If you contest a will, and you lose, you must pay the legal costs.


----------



## Trudee (12 May 2008)

That's interesting and what I would believe to be correct and yet a solicitor told me that any claim brought by a family member stating that the will & estate did not validly provide for them, that that member will have the legal costs on both sides paid out of the estate regardless of what way judgement goes i.e. in favour of contestant or in favour of other family members.


----------



## Ravima (12 May 2008)

Whiskey is correct.


----------



## Vanilla (12 May 2008)

I don't believe that is necessarily the case. Had a case recently where despite the fact that the contestor was obviously bringing a vexatious action the judge refused to order costs against them on the basis that it would make family relations worse, although they did have to pay their own costs.


----------



## Whiskey (12 May 2008)

OK, Vanilla has encountered a case where  the judge decided that the contesor only had to pay his/her own costs.  It's not always clearcut then.

I suppose the contesor could protect him/herself by asking her solicitor to take it on a no win/no fee basis, as opposed to paying on a time and materials basis. This would protect the contesor should he lose.


----------



## murphaph (12 May 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I don't believe that is necessarily the case. Had a case recently where despite the fact that the contestor was obviously bringing a vexatious action the judge refused to order costs against them on the basis that it would make family relations worse, although they did have to pay their own costs.


Correct me if I'm wrong but does that mean the poor sods who were in "the right" had to pay their legal costs to defend the vexatious action?


----------



## Vanilla (13 May 2008)

murphaph said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but does that mean the poor sods who were in "the right" had to pay their legal costs to defend the vexatious action?


 
That's right. 

Is there such a thing as no foal no fee now? As far as I am aware it only ever existed for personal injury actions and thought it was gone now but I havent dealt with any PI in a while now. Think it would be very unlikely that you'd find a firm who'd take on a probate action on that basis.


----------



## Whiskey (13 May 2008)

If a firm deems that the merits and prospects of success of your case are sufficiently good, they may be happy to enter into a "no win, no fee" arrangement. It's always worth asking. It's a great way of knowing the firm will work 100% on your behalf, because it's in their financial interest for you to win.

True, a lot of firms won't take a case on a "no win, no fee" basis, particularly if they are risk averse.

Today, I came across a firm of solicitors (albeit in Australia), advertising the fact that they can take on Will Dispute Cases on a no win no fee basis.
[broken link removed]

Must be possible in Ireland too.


----------



## Ravima (13 May 2008)

any local solicitor will advise you if you have a case or not.


----------



## Dachshund (13 May 2008)

Whiskey said:


> Today, I came across a firm of solicitors (albeit in Australia), advertising the fact that they can take on Will Dispute Cases on a no win no fee basis.
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Must be possible in Ireland too.



Not necessarily, this quote is from the [broken link removed] website about solicitors advertising.

*Solicitors (Advertising) Regulations, 2002*

*"Regulation 9(a)* forbids the inclusion of any words or phrases which suggest that legal services relating to contentious business will be provided at no cost or at a reduced cost ie “no foal no fee”, “most cases settle out of court” “insurance cover arranged to cover legal costs”. This prohibition is in line with the statutory ban on advertisements which encourage or induce claims for damages for personal injuries."


----------



## Vanilla (13 May 2008)

Dachshund said:


> Not necessarily, this quote is from the [broken link removed] website about solicitors advertising.
> 
> *Solicitors (Advertising) Regulations, 2002*
> 
> *"Regulation 9(a)* forbids the inclusion of any words or phrases which suggest that legal services relating to contentious business will be provided at no cost or at a reduced cost ie “no foal no fee”, “most cases settle out of court” “insurance cover arranged to cover legal costs”. This prohibition is in line with the statutory ban on advertisements which encourage or induce claims for damages for personal injuries."


 
Well that's only in relation to advertising, it doesn't say that the practise is necessarily in itself banned.


----------



## murphaph (13 May 2008)

Vanilla said:


> That's right.
> 
> Is there such a thing as no foal no fee now? As far as I am aware it only ever existed for personal injury actions and thought it was gone now but I havent dealt with any PI in a while now. Think it would be very unlikely that you'd find a firm who'd take on a probate action on that basis.


It just seems unfair that person A can contest person B's share of a will and lose their case and person B has to pay their own legal costs.


----------



## Vanilla (13 May 2008)

As it happens I totally agree. Believe it or not I was enraged on behalf of my clients. It's not the first time I've felt that an injustice was done in court.


----------



## Trudee (13 May 2008)

Therefore it would appear that advice from solicitor was correct - that party being contested will end up footing bill for contestor and themselves even if court rules against contestor.


----------



## DavyJones (13 May 2008)

Trudee said:


> Therefore it would appear that advice from solicitor was correct - that party being contested will end up footing bill for contestor and themselves even if court rules against contestor.


 
Where did you get that from? In the  one case mentioned the contestor paid their own legal bill, while the person being contested paid their own legal bill or did i miss something?


----------

