A recent inheritance dispute case has provided another stark reminder about the court’s view on parties who refuse to mediate, especially when the value of the estate is relatively modest. While each contentious probate and disputed Will claim is evaluated on its own merits, taking into consideration the individual circumstances of the claim, there are some overarching factors in such cases that courts agree on.

County Court claim by an adult child

The case of Rochford v Rochford occurred following the death of Kenneth Rochford whose estate was valued at around £193,000.

In his Will he had left £25,000 to his adult daughter and the majority of the remainder to his sister. This situation had come about as a result of a breakdown in the relationship between father and daughter which happened a few years before Mr Rochford’s death. While they had reconciled before his death, no amendment had been made to the Will.

Mr Rochford’s daughter suffers a genetic disease and she therefore claimed a need for continuing maintenance under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Mr Rochford’s sister argued that this claim was without merit and that the daughter had not fully disclosed her financial position. The claimant sought mediation, but her aunt refused, and so the case went to trial.

At the hearing, Recorder Williamson QC was not impressed by the defendant’s argument in respect of non-disclosure and especially her refusal to mediate. He awarded the claimant £85,000, on top of the original bequest, and made a favourable costs order as the claimant had ‘beaten’ an offer made under Part 36 Civil Procedure Rules.

Inheritance claim warning: mediate or suffer the disapproval of the court

There were numerous factors in this case that determined the judge’s ability to make an award under the 1975 Act, and such awards to an adult child are rare. However, the case remains an unambiguous warning about the likelihood of disapproval if parties are unwilling to undergo mediation, especially in the light of low value and litigation risk.

While some litigants may be determined to fight their corner doggedly, it is up to their legal advisers to ensure an understanding of the possible consequences. In this case, the defendant’s refusal to mediate came at a high price.

The judgement is also a useful reminder for probate dispute solicitors and litigants alike, that the court may adopt a pragmatic approach to arguments regarding financial disclosure. In this case, the judge determined that neither party was of significant means – there were no assets hidden offshore or in complex trusts and investments – so this argument could not be given much weight.