The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by three animal charities against a decision of the Court of Appeal to increase an award given to a woman out of her late mother’s estate.
When Melita Jackson died in 2004 she left most of her estate, worth around £486,000, to three animal charities, the Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She specifically did not include her daughter and only child Heather Ilott in her will, as she and Mrs Ilott had been estranged for a number of years.
Mrs Ilott made a claim for financial provision against the estate and was initially awarded the sum of £50,000. She appealed, seeking a greater award. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, and awarded her £143,000 to buy the home she lived in, and an option to receive £20,000 in one or more instalments. The charities appealed against that decision, to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to increase the award, and therefore reinstated the original award of £50,000. The Supreme Court also recognised the weight that should be afforded to Mrs Jackson’s very clear wishes regarding not having Mrs Ilott in her will, and the long period of estrangement.
In a supplementary judgment Lady Hale commented upon the unsatisfactory state of the present law on inheritance claims, which she said gave no guidance as to the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether an adult child is deserving or undeserving of reasonable maintenance.
Whilst agreeing with Lady Hale that further guidance would be welcome in cases such as this, Family Law Cafe welcomes the decision, which indicates that the court will give more weight to the intentions of those who make wills.
You can read the full judgment here.
Image: The Blue Cross pet charity, by (Mick Baker)rooster, licensed under CC BY 2.0.