The courts have the power to order claimants to provide financial security to ensure that the defendants can recover their costs if the claim is unsuccessful. Recently, the sons of a deceased man sought security for costs from a woman from Thailand who claimed to have been in a relationship with the man and was seeking financial provision from his estate.
The man had died in 2023. His sons were the executors and only beneficiaries under his will, made in 2006. His English estate was valued at about £421,000; however, he also had assets in Thailand and, according to the woman, in Singapore. He had made a Thai will in 2016 but there was a dispute between the woman and the sons as to the ownership of the Thai assets.
The woman sought provision from the man’s estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. She also sought repayment of a £194,000 loan, a proprietary interest in his estate under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, and an order entitling her to a grant of letters of administration. Her claim under the Act and/or the doctrine of proprietary estoppel amounted to one third of his estate.
The sons applied to the High Court for a security for costs order. By the time of the hearing, the woman accepted that security should be granted but claimed that the maximum amount she could afford was £30,000.
The Court considered whether making an order for more than £30,000 would leave her without the means to continue her claim. She had given evidence of her income and assets and claimed that she had sold her jewellery to cover court and legal fees. In the Court’s judgment, however, her evidence was not ‘full, frank and equivocal’. Her bank statements showed amounts equivalent to about £42,000 being paid in, and there was no evidence as to the source of those payments. Her evidence did not explain in any detail how she had funded her claim to date, or how she would continue to do so. She also had a bank account for which she had not disclosed statements. The Court was not satisfied that her financial circumstances were such that granting security of more than £30,000 would stifle her claim.
In considering the amount of the order, the Court noted that it had a number of concerns about the sons’ budget, considering it disproportionate to the value of the claim. The Court proposed to admit additional evidence relating to the value of the woman’s house in Thailand, and to give the sons permission to file evidence responding on this issue. In the meantime, as it was satisfied that £30,000 represented less than the minimum security the woman should provide, the Court would direct that she pay that amount within a short period.