Daughter Excluded From Will Loses Animal Charities Legal Fight
Daughter Excluded From Will Loses Animal Charities Legal Fight
Three animal charities have won a case at the Supreme Court against a woman who was cut out of her mother’s £500,000 will.
The long-running dispute over Melita Jackson’s will has made its way through the English courts since her death aged 70 in 2004. She left most of her estate to the charities but not a penny to her estranged daughter when she died.
Heather Ilott was rejected by her mother at 17 after she left home to live with her boyfriend, Nicholas Ilott, who she later married. In 2007, the county court awarded Ms Ilott £50,000 on the grounds that her mother had acted in an “unreasonable, capricious and harsh” way towards her. In 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled that this sum was not sufficient to her needs and increased it to £143,000 for a house purchase plus £20,000 for living costs.
Ms Ilott had made an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for “reasonable financial provision” from her mother’s estate.
Charities argue people should be free to choose beneficiaries
The increase was challenged by the Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). The charities argued individuals should be free to choose beneficiaries, and the court agreed Ms Ilott should receive only the original amount.
The Supreme Court ruling reinforces a longstanding principle of English law in upholding the wishes of those making wills. The decision means the courts are in the future more likely to uphold the wishes of the deceased, even if they leave little or nothing to their relatives.
Supreme Court justices were told that the appeal against the increase in Ms Ilott’s award had been brought by the animal charities “largely on principle” because of the possible impact on other cases.
‘Vital principle’ has been upheld
Jacqueline Almond, Partner and IBB’s wills, trusts and probate expert commented on the decision:
“The decision by the Supreme Court is largely a re-statement of the law. It provides certainty and removes a concern that the courts were trying to restrict the freedom of individuals to leave their estate to whoever they wish. It also makes it clear that a statement which explains why a child has been omitted or has a reduced share of an estate will carry weight in the consideration by the court” .
James Aspden, the solicitor acting for the three animal charities, said the Supreme Court had upheld a “vital principle.”
“It reaffirms in a unanimous sense from the highest court in the land that principle that we’re all free to choose who will benefit when we die . . . What we’ve seen the Supreme Court do today is clear things up, in the sense of how the Inheritance Act works, how far that freedom goes, and our hope and our belief following this judgement, is that we now have a much better idea where we all stand,” he said.
In a joint statement, the animal charities said: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has given welcome reassurance that – save in limited and specific circumstances – the wishes recorded in a person’s will must be respected.”
“The Blue Cross, the RSPCA and the RSPB, and the charitable sector as a whole, rely on generous gifts left in wills, without which much of their valuable work could not be done. This judgment will allow us to continue to honour the wishes of individuals who choose to remember charities in their wills,” the charities said their statement.
In the lead ruling, Lord Hughes said of the district judge’s award: “It was in fact an award which met many of Ms Ilott’s needs for maintenance. There was nothing about it which was outside the generous ambit of judgment available to him. His order ought to be restored.”
Providing guidance for future cases, he also observed: “Unlike some other systems, English law recognises the freedom of individuals to dispose of their assets by will after death in whatever manner they wish.”
Lawyers said on Ms Ilott’s behalf: “Heather is naturally very disappointed with the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment . . . Some of the judges have found that the current law is unsatisfactory and this will no doubt raise broader questions in the future.”
Protecting your wealth
While the rules of intestacy can produce unexpected distributions after an individual’s death, which can result in family disagreements, they can be avoided by drafting a will. Wills allow an individual to set out exactly who they would like to bequeath, including close friends and charities who are not covered at all in the intestacy rules.
Drawing up a will is the best way to ensure that your wishes are carried out as you intended after you’ve gone. A will also protects your loved ones and family and minimises the financial worry during what is an upsetting and stressful time. At IBB Solicitors, our wills, trusts and probate solicitors are here to help you plan for your family’s future.
Contact IBB’s legal experts today to discuss your inheritance tax and estate planning issue. Call us today on 03456 381381 or email estatemanagement@ibblaw.co.uk. Alternatively please visit the wills, trusts and probate page for more information on how we can help you.
You may also be interested in
Most Probate Fees Set to Increase
