Charitable intentions? The Court of Appeal upholds a controversial decision in the case of Ilott -v- Mitson

The Court of Appeal has caused a storm by upholding the decision of a District Judge to make an order under the Inheritance Act in favour of an estranged, financially independent, adult child of the deceased.

Circumstances of the case

Heather Ilott left home at 17. This decision ultimately led to estrangement from her mother, Mrs Jackson. Despite some unsuccessful attempts by Ms Ilott at a resolution, the estrangement continued until Mrs Jackson's death in 2004. Ms Ilott and her husband had five children. Ms Ilott had stopped working after the first child was born, and she was unemployed and reliant on state benefits for the following 25 years. There was no evidence that Ms Ilott had been anything other than completely financially independent from Mrs Jackson since the time she left home in the 1980's.

In her Will, Mrs Jackson left all of her estate to three animal charities and nothing to her daughter. She also wrote a letter separately, specifically stating that she did not want her daughter to benefit from her estate.

Ms Ilott made an application to the Court for an order under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 ("the Act") for financial provision from her mother's estate.

The proceedings

Ms Ilott's application first came before a District Judge, who made an Order that Ms Ilott should receive £50,000 from the estate. Ms Ilott appealed this decision, arguing that £50,000 still did not represent reasonable financial provision. In response to her appeal, the charities appealed the decision to award Ms Ilott anything at all. 

On appeal in the High Court, the decision of the District Judge was overturned but that decision was appealed by Ms Ilott again to the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal held that the District Judge had not been wrong, so the original decision to accept the application would stand - although the Court ordered that the question of what sum should be awarded should be reconsidered by the lower Court.

Comment

The decision of the Court of Appeal will frustrate critics who say that the Courts are too willing to interfere with the clear terms of a will, and that the legislation was not intended to permit the Courts to simply redistribute estates to those who might benefit from some financial provision against the express wishes of the deceased.

The Court of Appeal was able to sidestep the previous case of Re Coventry, in which the judge had made clear that it was not enough to simply be a qualifying applicant who is in need, but that there should also be a "moral claim" if an application is to be successful. The Court chose to interpret this decision as being specific to the circumstances of that particular case.

This case is therefore a potential further restriction on a person's freedom to dispose of their property by will as they wish.  By way of a comparison, had Mrs Jackson decided to give her entire estate away just before she died, there would have been no material estate out of which to make any award under the Act and Ms llott would have received nothing - as Mrs Jackson intended.

There may yet be a sting in the tail to this story for Ms Ilott, though, as it remains to be seen whether the reconsideration of the sum to be awarded will result in an increase or a decrease in the £50,000 awarded by the District Judge.

Ashfords' Inheritance Disputes Team can assist on any matters regarding a claim under the Inheritance Act. Please contact Robert Horsey on 01884 203086 for more details.

Ashfords LLP is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  The information in this note is intended to be general information about English law only and not comprehensive.  It is not to be relied on as legal advice nor as an alternative to taking professional advice relating to specific circumstances.