Indemnity Costs To Be Paid By Litigant In Person

In a recent blog, we reported on the case of Liu v Matyas, which consisted of a dispute over which professional executor should be appointed in place of the executors named in the deceased’s Will. Whilst Mr Matyas was successful in having his chosen professional executor appointed, he was later ordered to pay Mr Liu’s costs on an indemnity basis predominantly due to the manner in which he dealt with the case.

Case background

As a brief reminder of this case, the deceased’s brother, Mr Liu, sought to remove Mr Matyas, the deceased’s partner, as co-executor of the estate on the grounds he did not participate in obtaining probate. Mr Liu also suggested in the alternative, a professional executor is appointed to deal with the estate in favour of them both.

Mr Matyas agreed with having a professional executor appointed in their place but disagreed as to Mr Liu’s selection of having a city lawyer appointed. The dispute proceeded to unravel as a dispute over which professional executor would be appointed, in which Mr Matyas’ preferred lawyer was chosen by the Court.

Litigant in Person ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis

Although Mr Matyas succeeded in having his chosen executor appointed, the Court still held Mr Liu as the successful party as the initial claim was to have Mr Matyas removed as executor and as an alternative, have a professional executor solely appointed. On deciding the case, Mr Liu sought to recover his costs from Mr Matyas on the indemnity, rather than the standard basis (a more onerous way of assessing the costs to be payable by the losing party). In making a decision, the Court considered the approach adopted by Mr Matyas throughout the dispute.

Mr Matyas represented himself throughout the majority of the proceedings and was deemed to be a Litigant in Person. Whilst being a Litigant in Person, Mr Matyas alleged Mr Liu was guilty of fraud but produced no evidence in his support. Mr Matyas also made criticisms over the Judge’s impartiality, failed to follow a number of directions, attempted to cross examine witnesses where it was not required, and abused the disclosure of evidence process by including vast amounts of irrelevant documents. The Court also noted that Mr Matyas had sufficient time before trial to reach an agreement with Mr Liu, however, his approach was consistent with being unwilling to co-operate.

The Court held on this basis that Mr Liu was entitled to recover his costs on an indemnity basis and drew references to Mr Matyas’ conduct in proceedings. The Court suggested this matter could have been dealt with far more efficiently if it had not for Mr Matyas’ conduct.

Comment

This highlights the importance of a Litigant in Person having to act properly and to some degree, approach disputes in an orderly manner so as to minimise any costs which may be awarded against them.

It is notable that the Court did not, however, reference Mr Matyas’ failure to comply with directions as part of the reasoning for making such a cost award. This suggests that it is expected Litigants in Person will make some procedural errors.