“This case cries out for mediation”: Rogers v Wills and the cost of litigating family inheritance disputes

Two trials, a 2,038-page bundle, substantial costs and a family relationship left in ruins. Rogers v Wills is a powerful reminder that winning an inheritance dispute is not always the same as resolving it.

Few phrases from the bench are as striking — or as telling — as a judge observing that a case “cries out for mediation”. Yet that is precisely the character of the court’s remarks in Rogers v Wills [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch), a decision of the Business and Property Courts which followed an earlier trial reported as Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch).

By the time the second judgment was handed down, the litigation had consumed two trials, generated a trial bundle running to 2,038 pages and left the parties — members of the same family — with substantial legal costs and a relationship in ruins.

The case is a sobering illustration of what happens when a dispute over an estate, a will or family property is litigated to the bitter end, and of why the courts increasingly say out loud what experienced practitioners already know: many of these cases should have been mediated long before trial.

A dispute that would not stop

Like so many inheritance and family property disputes, Rogers v Wills was not a case between commercial strangers. It was a dispute between people connected by family, by history and by shared memories — the very people for whom litigation is most destructive.

The first trial, determined in 2025, resolved certain issues between the parties. But inheritance litigation has a well-known tendency to metastasise: one issue is decided, and another application, another hearing or another trial follows. By 2026 the parties were back before the High Court, with the bundle now standing at 2,038 pages.

A bundle of that size tells its own story. Behind it lie years of correspondence, witness statements, disclosure, expert input and interim skirmishes — and behind each of those lie mounting fees on both sides.

It was against that background that the court made its now-notable observation:

“This is a case which cries out for mediation rather than litigation.”

Judges do not make remarks of that kind lightly. They are made when the court can see that the legal process, however carefully conducted, is not capable of giving the parties what they actually need: an end to the dispute that they can live with, at a cost that does not dwarf what is being fought over.

Why inheritance disputes escalate so quickly

Contentious probate and inheritance claims combine three combustible ingredients: grief, money and family history. It is common for the pleaded dispute — the validity of a will, the interpretation of a trust, the ownership of a property — to sit on top of decades of unspoken grievance.

That combination produces litigation with some distinctive features:

• Parties fight not only over assets but over what those assets represent — recognition, fairness, a parent’s love or a lifetime’s perceived slights.
• Settlement offers are rejected not because they are inadequate, but because accepting them feels like conceding the emotional argument.
• Costs accumulate on both sides while the estate or property at the centre of the dispute remains static — or shrinks to fund the litigation itself.
• Every hearing hardens positions, making the eventual settlement — if one comes at all — more difficult and more expensive than it needed to be.

The result, as Rogers v Wills demonstrates, can be two trials and a four-figure-page bundle in a dispute that a structured negotiation might have resolved in a day or two.

The arithmetic of litigating to the end

The ordinary rule in civil litigation is that the unsuccessful party pays a substantial proportion of the winner’s costs in addition to their own. In High Court Chancery litigation, those figures can be severe.

A multi-day trial with leading or junior counsel, solicitors, extensive disclosure and witness evidence can generate six-figure costs on each side. Where there are two trials, the exposure compounds. And in inheritance cases there is a particularly bitter feature: the costs may be paid, directly or indirectly, out of the very estate the parties are fighting over.

That is how families litigate away an inheritance. The estate that might have provided security for two branches of a family instead funds two sets of lawyers — and nobody regards the outcome as a victory.

There is also a cost that never appears on any schedule:

“A court can declare a winner. It cannot necessarily produce peace.”

A judgment determines legal rights. It does not reconcile a family, it does not restore relationships, and it frequently ensures that the losing party — a sibling, a child, a parent — never speaks to the winning party again. When the judge in Rogers v Wills described the case as crying out for mediation, it was this dimension of the dispute, as much as the costs, that the observation was aimed at.

What mediation could have offered

Mediation is not about pretending the legal issues do not matter. It is about dealing with them in a forum where the parties retain control, the process is confidential, and the range of possible outcomes is wider than anything a court can order.

In an inheritance or family property dispute, a mediated settlement might involve a restructured division of the estate, agreed sale and division of property, staged payments, arrangements for personal possessions of sentimental value, or terms that allow both sides to walk away with dignity — none of which a judge can impose after trial.

Crucially, mediation can happen at almost any stage. It can take place before proceedings are issued, once positions have crystallised in correspondence, after disclosure has shown each side the strength of the other’s case, or even — as Rogers v Wills itself shows — between trials, when some issues have been determined but the dispute as a whole remains alive.

Our pages on probate and inheritance disputes and civil and commercial mediation explain how we approach cases of this kind, and our mediation terms set out the confidential, without prejudice basis on which a mediation is conducted.

The lesson for families and their advisers

The message from Rogers v Wills [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch) is not that inheritance disputes are never suitable for trial. Some cases genuinely require determination — a point of law, a question of capacity or forgery, or a party who will not engage. But the default assumption should not be that litigation is the natural route.

The questions every party should ask early are simple:

• What will this dispute have cost by the time it reaches trial?
• What will be left of the estate, or the relationship, when it is over?
• Is there an outcome — however imperfect — that both sides could accept now?

If the answer to the last question is even “perhaps”, mediation should be attempted. The courts expect it, the costs rules increasingly reward it, and cases like Rogers v Wills show the alternative.

Two trials. A 2,038-page bundle. A family relationship in ruins. And a judge saying, in terms, that the case cried out for mediation. The warning could hardly be clearer.

About ProMediate

ProMediate provides independent civil and commercial mediation, including the mediation of wills, probate, inheritance, trust and family property disputes. Our mediators are experienced in the sensitivity and complexity of disputes between family members.

Mediation can take place at an early stage, during litigation, or after particular issues have been determined by the court.

If you are involved in an inheritance or family property dispute and would like to explore mediation, enquire about mediation or contact ProMediate to discuss whether mediation may assist.

This article provides general information only and is not legal advice.