The Supreme Court hands down landmark decision in Ilott v The Blue Cross and others
This case which has been widely reported on in the UK media, is an appeal judgement, from a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This claim was made against the estate of Mrs Jackson by her daughter, Mrs Ilott.
Mrs Ilott and her mother had been estranged for the majority of the 26 years before Mrs Jackson’s death in 2004. In her last will, made in 2002, Mrs Jackson left the majority of her estate to a number of charities, and made no provision for her daughter. This was a decision Mrs Jackson had made as early as 1984. Mrs Ilott had been aware for many years of her mother’s decision and had lived without any expectation of benefiting from the estate.
Initially, the District Judge’s decision was that Mrs Jackson’s will did not make a reasonable financial provision for her daughter, Mrs Ilott, and awarded her £50,000.
The charities which were beneficiaries of Mrs Jackson’s will challenged this, stating that there was a lack of reasonable provision. This challenge failed and the dispute has since proceeded only on the issue of the amount of the award, which Mrs Ilott appealed as being too low.
The Court of Appeal stated that the District Judge had made two errors of principle in his approach. Firstly, the award should be limited in light of the long estrangement and lack of expectation of inheriting. However, the Judge did not identify what the award would have been without these factors and the reduction which could be attributed to them.
Secondly, he made his award without knowing what the effect of it would be on the benefits which Mrs Ilott and her family presently received. The Court of Appeal re-evaluated the claim and awarded Mrs Ilott £143,000 to buy the council house she lived in, and an option to receive £20,000 in one or more instalments. The award was designed to avoid affecting Mrs Ilott’s benefits entitlement.
The charities appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Judgment on 15th March 2017:
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the charities’ appeals. It stated that the District Judge did not make either of the two errors which the Court of Appeal used to revisit his award. The Court of Appeal’s order is to be set aside and the District Judge’s order restored of £50,000 in favour of the daughter.
Dispute Resolution Partner, Michelle Hayter, advises clients on disputed will cases regularly and is a a Member of the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS) which demonstrates her expertise in disputes over wills and inheritances. She comments on this case “The Supreme Court has decided the Ilott appeal in favour of three charities, but its judgement was based on a technicality. The Blue Cross and other charities involved, will hail this as a victory for charities, however, in reality they won on two narrow grounds which are unlikely to be of wider impact in other similar cases in the future. The Supreme Court was at pains to say that appeals should be discouraged. The Law Commission may now be prompted to clarify the law and the way in which courts should these cases.”
Our Disputed Wills Team, based in Christchurch, also cover Bournemouth, Poole and the New Forest. If you have any questions, you only have to ask us at Frettens. Please call 01202 499255 and Michelle or her team, will be happy to chat about your situation and you particular requirements.
Comments