In a notable case within the Family Division, a solicitor has been ordered to pay £5,700 in costs after being summonsed to be cross-examined regarding a contested will.
Chief Master Shuman presided over the case, highlighting the lack of adequate response from the solicitor, Michelle Niaz, related to a Larke v Nugus request. This request, made by two of Derek Addision’s children after his death in March 2023, sought detailed disclosure to avoid unnecessary litigation expenses.
The solicitor, affiliated with a Lancashire law firm, failed to provide a satisfactory response until July 2023. This drew criticism from Chief Master Shuman, who pointed out the brevity of the reply, which lacked essential details expected in a proper Larke v Nugus response.
As a result, the applicants pursued a summons under section 122 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, compelling Ms. Niaz to attend a court hearing. Despite the solicitor’s claims of mental health challenges affecting her promptness, the court found inconsistencies in her statements compared to earlier communications.
Chief Master Shuman emphasised that the solicitor’s witness statement did not align with her letter from July, suggesting an issue of clarity and consistency. The court proceedings clarified some matters through detailed examination, but it highlighted the necessity of the summons and hearing.
Although representatives for Ms. Niaz argued that no order for costs should be made against her, citing significant mental health difficulties, the court found the applicants’ actions justified due to the evident suspicions needing clear answers.
Ultimately, despite the solicitor’s arguments, Chief Master Shuman decided that Ms. Niaz should cover the legal costs, reducing the applicants’ initial claim from £9,290 plus VAT to £4,775 plus VAT, totalling £5,730.
The case underscores the procedural expectations of solicitors in will drafting and the potential repercussions of inadequate responses in legal affairs.
The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the obligations on solicitors to provide thorough and timely disclosures in legal proceedings. Failure to do so can result in financial penalties, as exemplified in this case, where transparency was deemed crucial for ensuring justice and clarity.
