In the recent Chancery Division ruling in this case, the Court tackled a multifaceted dispute combining issues of probate, rectification, and professional negligence. This case serves as a timely reminder of the Courts’ willingness to consolidate interconnected proceedings and their growing emphasis on mediation, even in complex legal matters.
Background
At the heart of this case lies a contested estate belonging to the Deceased, whose testamentary intentions are now under scrutiny due to two conflicting Wills, one from 1994 and a later version from 2009. The Claimants, the children of a relative of the Deceased (a nephew of the deceased), dispute both Wills. They argued either that the Deceased died without a valid Will, or that both Wills contain errors requiring rectification due to a failure to properly reflect his true intentions.
The 2009 Will, in particular, has drawn criticism. It was drafted based on handwritten notes, allegedly misinterpreted by the respondent, Trust Inheritance Limited, a Will-writing company. These errors led to significant family members being excluded from inheritance.
The legal dispute
The Claimants have brought a separate negligence claim, issued under CPR Part 7 in the County Court, alleging that Trust Inheritance’s drafting failures caused the contested outcome. This set the stage for the application before the Chancery Division, where the claimants sought to:
- Join Trust Inheritance as a costs-only party to the probate proceedings; or
- Consolidate the negligence claim with the probate and rectification matters.
Submissions from the parties
- Claimants: Asserted that, since Trust Inheritance’s negligence caused the testamentary confusion, they should bear the cost of liability. They sought to compel their involvement in mediation and future hearings, either through joinder or consolidation.
- First Defendant (a cousin and beneficiary under the disputed Will): Took a neutral stance on joinder but agreed to mediation.
The Court’s analysis
The Court rejected the idea of joining the Will-writing company as a costs-only party for the following reasons:
- The negligence claim hadn’t yet been fully pleaded or tested;
- There was no admission or finding of liability; and
- It would be premature and procedurally unfair to consider cost liability without resolving the negligence issue through trial.
The Court cited Deutsche Bank and held that non-party cost orders require clear culpability, which wasn’t yet established.
The Court approved the consolidation of the negligence proceedings with the probate and rectification claims, reasoning that:
- All claims arose from the “same factual background”;
- Resolving the issues together would “streamline the proceedings”, reduce duplication, and save costs; and
- Consolidation would allow a single judge to consider all elements, enhancing judicial efficiency.
This decision also followed precedents like Churchill and Wormleighton, reinforcing the importance of coherent dispute resolution.
Importantly, the Court ordered all parties, including Trust Inheritance, to participate in mediation. Recognising the tripartite nature of the dispute and the high stakes involved, the judge emphasised that early settlement could avoid further litigation expense and emotional toll.
The decision
- The Court ordered a consolidation of the negligence claim with the probate and rectification actions:
- Claimants were required to file and serve their particulars of claim by 4 PM on 17 September 2025;
- Proceedings are to be stayed until after mediation;
- Trust Inheritance must “actively participate in the mediation”;
- If mediation fails, the stay will be lifted and litigation will resume.
Legal and practical significance
This case underscores several key themes:
- Consolidation as a tool for efficiency – When different claims arise from the same facts, Courts are increasingly willing to merge proceedings to ensure consistent and fair outcomes;
- Cautious use of non-party cost orders – Joinder for cost purposes is not a shortcut. Without clear liability, the Court will insist on full pleadings and a proper trial; and
- The central role of mediation – Particularly in contentious probate and negligence matters- mediation is more than a formality and is viewed by the courts as a compulsory step where possible.
For legal practitioners, it serves as a guidepost on how the courts balance procedural fairness, cost efficiency, and dispute resolution in multi-party, multi-issue litigation.
As the case progresses beyond mediation, it may yet provide further judicial insights on the duties of will-writers, the scope of rectification in probate, and the evolving responsibilities of professionals in legacy planning.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is an Associate in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us