Sharas Alexander Changizi v Robin Donal Mayes & Anor

The court may stay proceedings where allowing a claimant to continue without paying costs ordered in earlier related proceedings would be abusive or unjust. The relevant inquiry is fact-sensitive and includes the nature and connection of the earlier and later proceedings, their outcome, the surrounding circumstances, and whether requiring the claimant to proceed without payment would be unfair. The claimant bears the burden of proving that a stay would stifle the claim. In succession disputes, the character of English immovable property and the applicable law are ordinarily determined at the deceased’s death. A later sale converting land into cash does not alter the law governing administration of the English estate.

The claimant, a beneficiary of an estate, brought a Part 8 claim seeking disclosure and information from the executors in contemplation of claims for breach of trust or devastavit. The defendants applied for a stay until the claimant paid unpaid costs orders exceeding £115,000 arising from earlier probate and estate proceedings. The claimant sought distribution of his alleged share, or sufficient funds to pay the costs.

The court had to determine the claimant’s entitlement after deductions, whether a stay would stifle the claim, and whether it would be unjust or abusive to require the executors to defend the proceedings while the earlier costs remained unpaid.

1. The defendants’ application succeeded. The claim was stayed until the outstanding costs were paid in full. The claimant’s application for distribution was dismissed.

2. The jurisdiction to stay proceedings to prevent abuse is broad. The court must consider the nature and connection of the earlier and later proceedings, the outcome of the earlier proceedings, all the surrounding circumstances, and the discretionary question whether it would be unjust or unfair to require the defendants to incur further costs while earlier costs orders remain unpaid. Exact identity between the proceedings is unnecessary.

3. The court need not determine whether the claimant can pay the costs or whether the earlier proceedings were abusive. It must, however, consider whether a stay would stifle the new claim. The claimant bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the claim would be stifled. The evidence provided was inadequate, and the court concluded that the claimant had chosen not to pay rather than being unable to pay.

4. For conflict-of-laws purposes, the English leasehold properties vested in the personal representatives as immovable property at the deceased’s death. The decisive moment was the date of death. The subsequent sale of the properties and receipt of cash did not change the applicable law governing administration and distribution of the English estate, which remained governed by the will and English law.

5. The court treated the claimant as liable to the estate for inheritance tax and interest paid by the executors in respect of the lifetime transfer. After deducting that liability and the unpaid costs from the claimant’s share, nothing remained distributable to him.

6. The surrounding circumstances established abuse and injustice in permitting the claim to proceed. The earlier probate challenge had been abusive, the derivative claim had been hopeless, the costs were substantial and long unpaid, and the claimant had not accepted the executors’ offer to provide much of the requested information.

7. No unless order was made immediately. If the costs were not paid within three months, the executors could apply for a peremptory unless order, potentially dealt with in writing.