When dealing with vulnerable relatives and estate planning, this case serves as a stark warning about how financial abuse and dishonesty can destroy an anticipated inheritance while landing a wrongdoer with heavy legal debts.
Background:
This judgement resolves the consequential applications regarding costs, interim payments, and transparency following a contested statutory will hearing concerning “P” that concluded in March 2026. The primary proceedings resulted in a statutory will being authorised in P's best interests, which had the legal consequences of disinheriting the second respondent, “C”, who was the residuary beneficiary under a previous will. In a matter that was germane to the dispute, C and her husband were suspected of a history of financial abuse against P – despite knowledge of his cognitive difficulties – with allegations that they took money from him, attempted to make unauthorised withdrawals at a building society, and consistently provided false accounts regarding funds received from him.
Following this, the Professional Deputy for Property and Affairs and the Official Solicitor acting as litigation friend for P sought costs against C on an indemnity basis, alongside the liberty to apply for a non-party costs order against C's husband. Additionally, the Official Solicitor requested the publication of a transcript of the main judgement and the lifting of the transparency order concerning C and her husband.
Decision:
The Court of Protection (CoP) departed from its general rule, wherein costs are usually paid by the estate, rejecting indemnity costs and ordering C to pay half the counsel's brief fees for the final hearing for both the applicant and the Official Solicitor. An interim payment was approved but restricted to one-quarter of the total counsel fees. The application for liberty to apply for a non-party costs order against C's husband was refused due to procedural non-compliance and a lack of natural justice. Further, the requests to publish the main statutory will judgement and lift the transparency order were refused, although the present costs judgement may yet be published, if requested.
Implications:
This case serves as a cautionary tale of the catastrophic financial and legal consequences of engaging in financial abuse against a vulnerable relative. By attempting to exploit a parent with cognitive difficulties and seeking to protect a self-interested will, the individual not only lost her expected inheritance entirely when the CoP authorised a new statutory will in the father's best interests, but she was also hit with substantial adverse cost orders requiring her to pay significant portions of the opposing parties' legal fees. The ruling illustrates that courts will readily strip away default cost protections and impose financial penalties on those individuals whose abusive conduct and dishonesty force costly litigation, transforming an anticipated windfall into a heavy legal debt.
For private client practitioners, wealth planners, and family offices, this decision serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerability of elderly or cognitively impaired testators to undue influence and financial exploitation by close relatives. It emphasises the critical importance of robust estate planning and thorough contemporaneous record-keeping when dealing with vulnerable clients whose testamentary intentions change dramatically late in life. Further, the ruling highlights the procedural strictures surrounding non-party costs and third-party liabilities, signalling to advisers that targeting third parties involved in financial abuse requires strict compliance with formal joinder rules rather than informal shortcuts. Finally, the judgement illustrates that, while courts will penalise dishonest conduct and financial misconduct by departing from standard cost protections, they remain pragmatic about proportionality and the privacy rights of uninvolved family members when balancing transparency against confidentiality.