RSPCA criticised by high court judge for litigation
On 5 February, Judge James Allen ordered the charity to pay most of the £1.3m legal costs...
...arising from the long-running legal battle (Gill v RSPCA) over the bequest of Dr Gill’s family farm by her mother to the RSCPA.
On 11 February, another high court judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith also ruled against the RSPCA when the charity took the heirs of George Mason to court in a dispute about where the inheritance tax bill should come from in an estate shared between Norman and Patricia Sharp (£403,000 in cash and a house), his brother John (66,000), and the RSPCA (a residue of around £482,820).
The judge commented that Mr Mason had never intended that any tax liability should fall on his brother or friends and the £112,000 tax bill should be paid from the residue after their gifts had been calculated. He has also ordered the charity pay the legal costs on an indemnity basis – the highest that can be awarded. If the RSPCA had been successful and augmented their share to the £650,000 they were claiming, the Sharps would have seen their bequest cut to £271,000 and the legator’s brother’s share would have dropped to £28,820.
In the end, the RSPCA was still left with £370,000 but the fight may well have put off future donors making bequests to the charity.
Fiona Wilson, a solicitor at Hempsons told Caritas: ‘Life is seldom black and white but high profile cases can be portrayed that way and there is little one can do to prevent it. These two recent cases are salutary illustrations of the risks of bringing litigation. Whatever the rights and wrongs involved and however compelling the legal arguments may be, the public perception when the story is "out" will be dominated by how it is presented by the media - not the law reports.
‘Charities clearly have a duty to ensure that they receive all their entitlement under a will, but must be absolutely certain that litigation with all that entails is a suitable path to follow. The costs involved alone highlight the worst aspects of the law in the public eye particularly when these are to be borne from charitable funds and the future damage to the perception of charity, which itself is often highly dependent on legacy income, is incalculable. Litigation should be avoided unless absolutely necessary particularly in such a highly sensitive and emotive area as this.’
Author: Clarissa Dann
Clarissa Dann was the editor of Caritas as well as an HR and management online service,he People Bulletin until July 2011.
She is now the editor of the specialist trade finance magazine, Trade and Forfaiting Review which can be viewed at www.tfreview.com but does write on charity finance and investment from time to time.
Clarissa has a background in legal and professional publishing, as well as business journalism and holds an MBA from
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.