Home > Legal Articles > Ilott v The Blue Cross and others – Supreme Court

Ilott v The Blue Cross and others – Supreme Court

Posted on Friday, 24th March 2017 by

 Ilott v The Blue Cross and others – Supreme Court

This appeal relates to a claim made by an adult child for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Mrs Heather Ilot brought a claim against her late mother’s estate having been excluded from her Will.

The testator, Ms Melita Jackson, gifted the majority of her estate to a number of charities upon her death in 2004, namely the Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Mrs Ilot had been estranged from her mother for 26 years prior to Ms Jackson’s death having left the family home to live with her now husband, at the age of 17. Mrs Ilot now has five children and relies on benefits and her husband’s modest wage to get by. They have lived completely financially independent from Ms Jackson and have made very few attempts to reconcile with Ms Jackson, all of which failed.

Initial Award

On the opposition of Mrs Ilots claim, formal proceedings began and in 2007 District Judge Million awarded Mrs Ilot £50,000.00 in damages, as he found Ms Jackson’s Will did not make reasonable financial provision for her daughter. Mrs Ilot then appealed this decision and in July 2015 the Court of Appeal increased the damages to £143,000.00 to enable her to purchase her Housing Association Home and an additional £20,000.00 to ensure Mrs Ilot’s benefits entitlement was not affected. The three charities sought to appeal this decision and the matter was transferred to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard the charities appeal on 12th December 2016 and the Judgment was delivered on 15th March 2017. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favour of the three animal charities, restoring District Judge Million’s original award.

This is the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to consider the provisions of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and in making its decision, it has reaffirmed a vital principle in law. The ruling confirms that considerable weight must be given to testator’s wishes and family relationships do not necessarily provide disinherited family members with an entitlement to the estate. However, the Judges agreed that the law surrounding Will’s should be clarified to avoid any future claims and so we may see a repeal of the Law in the near future.

 

If you would like to discuss the contents of this blog or have any related queries, please do not hesitate to contact our Advisory Dispute Resolution department on 0330 024 9643 or contact Neusha Mazaher direct by email addressed to neusha.mazaher@ehlcommercial.co.uk.

The information provided in all of our blogs reflects only a narrative of some elements to consider on the topic. The blogs do not contain considered legal advice and should not be relied upon as advice. Please see our website terms and conditions for full details of our disclaimer. If you are interested in obtaining advice, please contact a member of the team who will be happy and able to advise you on your own particular circumstances.

Talk to our legal team

The information provided in all of our blogs reflects only a narrative of some elements to consider on the topic. The blogs do not contain considered legal advice and should not be relied upon as advice. Please see our website terms and conditions for full details of our disclaimer. If you are interested in obtaining advice, please contact one of our lawyers who will be happy and able to advise you on your own particular circumstances.

[]
1 Step 1

Quick Quote

Your Nameyour full name
Contact Number
Post Codeyour full name
Your Messagemore details
0 /
Previous
Next

Related author articles
Article tags

Map and pin icon
Sign up to our newsletter
  ERROR: 8 - CURL error: