{"id":1118,"date":"2017-03-15T14:11:06","date_gmt":"2017-03-15T14:11:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/?p=1118"},"modified":"2017-03-15T14:11:06","modified_gmt":"2017-03-15T14:11:06","slug":"charities-win-supreme-court-will-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/charities-win-supreme-court-will-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Disputing a Will: Charities ‘win’ Supreme Court inheritance dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"

A long-standing court battle between a number of charities and a daughter who had been left out of her mother\u2019s Will has finally concluded, following a judgment of the Supreme Court which overturned the Court of Appeal\u2019s previous decision and re-instated the original Judge\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

Some 13 years after the Deceased\u2019s death and 10 years since the original decision, it appears that the Supreme Court have provided some guidance as to how these types of claims should be dealt with but the nature of these types of case remain subject to a wide degree of judicial discretion. This is the first time a case under this act has been considered by the highest court on England and Wales<\/p>\n

What was the case about?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In summary, Heather Ilott issued a claim against her mother\u2019s Estate under an Act called the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act (1975)<\/a>. This allows certain people, including spouses, co-habitants and children to make a claim against an Estate of a deceased person if they believe that they do not receive \u201creasonable financial provision\u201d under that person\u2019s Will or if the rules of intestacy (those being the rules that govern how an estate is distributed where there is no Will).<\/p>\n

The Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Melita Jackson died in 2004. She left a Will leaving her entire estate, which was valued at approx \u00a3486,000 to three charities. She had one daughter, Heather Ilott who she omitted from her Will. They had been estranged since 1978 when Heather left home aged 17 to live with her boyfriend.<\/p>\n

The daughter had 5 children, had some debt, lived in rented accommodation and was reliant on state benefits. She therefore issued a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act (1975) against her mother\u2019s estate.<\/p>\n

The First Proceedings<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The daughter\u2019s claim was opposed by the charities and in 2007 the matter was dealt with by way of a court trial. The District Judge hearing the case awarded the daughter a lump sum of \u00a350,000 as \u201creasonable provision\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The First Appeal<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Both parties appealed that decision. The Charities appealed primarily on the basis that because the daughter was an adult and was not being maintained by her mother, there was no obligation on the estate to make provision for her.<\/p>\n

The daughter\u2019s appeal was in relation to the amount of the award. Her main point of argument was that, because of her financial position, an award of \u00a350,000 would simply result in her living off the award until she became entitled to benefits once again. She therefore requested a lump sum sufficient to enable her to buy her council property.<\/p>\n

In 2009, the Court allowed the Charities appeal but didn\u2019t consider the amount of the award. In other words, the award to Heather was overturned.<\/p>\n

The \u201cSecond\u201d Appeal<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2015, the Court of Appeal allowed the daughter\u2019s appeal on the basis that the Court should not have readily interfered with the original judge\u2019s decision without good reason.<\/p>\n

The \u201cThird\u201d Appeal<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2015, the Court of Appeal allowed the daughter\u2019s appeal that the amount allowed was too low and awarded her:<\/p>\n