Animal charities lose out in Court of Appeal
Three animal charities face likely reductions in their shares of a legacy because of the legal action of the legator’s estranged daughter.
Melita Jackson died on 10 July 2004 at the age of 70, leaving a net estate of £486,000, most of which was left to the RSPB, the RSPCA and the Blue Cross Animal Welfare Society, although there was no evidence that she had any particular love of animals or birds when she was alive.
Her will, dated 16 April 2003, made no provision for her only child, and was accomp-anied by a letter to explain why she had disinherited her only daughter, referring to the fact that she had walked out of her home in 1978 to live with her boyfriend. Heather Ilott, who is married with five children, lives mainly on benefits in housing association accomm-odation. Her barrister, John Collins, acting pro bono argued that Mrs Jackson's decision to disinherit her daughter was not because she supported any of the charities "but out of spite".
When Mrs Jackson died in 2004, Ilott challenged her will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. She refused several attempts by the charities to settle the case and was awarded £50,000 by a judge in 2007 but that was later reversed by the High Court after she had appealed about the low level of the sum and she ended up with nothing. The case then went to the Court of Appeal.
Mrs Justice Black, sitting with president of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall and Lady Justice Arden, said it had been "unreasonable" of Mrs Jackson to cut her daughter out of her will in favour of charities to which she had no prior connection.
This ruling means Mrs Ilott can now return to the High Court for a bigger payout from her mother's estate. The Blue Cross comments: “It sets a dangerous precedent for future cases where anyone could choose to appeal against the will of a close family member on the grounds of their own financial situation, regardless of the documented wishes of the deceased.”
James Aspden, a solicitor representing the three charities, said his clients were hugely disappointed at the ruling. He said: "The Court of Appeal has reinterpreted 30 years of law and left in its place a lack of clear guidance, which creates further uncertainty about a person's right to leave money to people or organisations of their choice".
Heather Ilott v (1) David Mitson (2) Michael Land (3) Blue Cross (4) Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals 92011]EWCA Civ 346
Should judges be able to change your wishes? The Court of Appeal thinks so. James Aspden explains in an article published in The Times on 21 April 2011. Do feel free to use the comment facility on CharitiesDirect to let us have your views.
Comments
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.