Valerie May Olga Sim v Kate Ellen Elizabeth Pimlott & Ors

In a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, the unsuccessful claimant was ordered to pay the active defendants’ costs. Costs were assessed on the standard basis up to the expiry of a rejected Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 36 offer, and on the indemnity basis thereafter. A generous offer which would have produced a substantially better outcome was sufficient to justify indemnity costs, without deciding whether the claimant’s litigation conduct independently warranted that order. Impecuniosity was not, by itself, a good reason to refuse a payment on account of costs. The court also held that existing instalment orders could be varied under CPR 3.1(7) where the anticipated monetary award did not arise, and refused permission to appeal because there was no real prospect of success or other compelling reason.

The claimant sought reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. Following a trial, the court largely dismissed the claim but ordered a variation of the residuary trusts to provide up to £400,000 towards a home for her occupation. The court then determined the incidence and basis of costs, payment on account, variation of earlier costs orders, and the claimant’s application for permission to appeal.

The issues included the effect of rejected settlement offers, the significance of the claimant’s conduct, whether lack of funds justified withholding an interim costs payment, and whether subsequent events justified varying instalment arrangements.

1. Costs. The defendants who actively defended the claim were the successful parties, except for the fourth defendant, who supported the claimant. The claimant was ordered to pay their costs on the standard basis up to 16 October 2020 and on the indemnity basis thereafter. The decisive reason was her failure to accept the 18 September 2020 Part 36 offer, which the court regarded as generous and materially better than the result obtained.
2. The court reached that conclusion without relying on litigation conduct. It nevertheless held, as an alternative observation, that the claimant’s conduct after she ceased to be represented would itself have justified indemnity costs, having regard to the serious allegations pursued and the findings made at trial. The indemnity basis removed proportionality from the assessment and resolved any doubt in favour of the receiving parties.
3. Payment on account. Under CPR 44.2(8), the court ordered payment of £100,000 on account of costs. The claimant’s impecuniosity was not a good reason to withhold the order, since her ability to pay would be no better after detailed assessment.
4. Variation of existing orders. Under CPR 3.1(7), the court varied two earlier instalment orders. The anticipated monetary award had not been made; instead, accommodation had been provided. That subsequent event destroyed the basis on which the orders had been agreed or made. Monthly payments therefore ceased, and the costs became payable by 5 June 2023, subject to any later application for time to pay.
5. Permission to appeal. The claimant identified no procedural irregularity. The factual findings were open to the court on the evidence, so there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for an appeal. Permission was refused.

First-instance proceedings. The judgment records that permission to appeal from the substantive decision was refused by the High Court.