This case involved Heather Ilott, estranged daughter to the deceased, and Melita Jackson, who left most of her estate, worth £500,000, to three charities - The Blue Cross, the RSPCA and the RSPB.
Heather Ilott made a claim as an adult child under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and was awarded £50,000. Both parties appealed, Ilott on the basis that the award was not enough and the charities on the basis that there was no lack of reasonable provision. The Court of Appeal, in July 2015, increased Ilott's award to £143,000 in order that she could buy her rented home plus an extra £20,000 for additional income. This increase was challenged by the charities.
This is the first time that the Supreme Court has considered the provisions of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Ten years after the first instance judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously struck out the ruling of the Court of Appeal and restored the original ruling, in their Judgment on 15 March which awarded Ilott the original £50,000.
What Does this Mean for Charities Who May Be Facing Having to Defend a Claim?
- The Supreme Court acknowledged the significance of Melita Jackson's choice of charities even though she had no connection with them during her lifetime. Charities are not required to justify their position as a beneficiary. Whether the testator has had a connection with the charity or not is sufficient.
- The Supreme Court judgment supports testamentary freedom - the Inheritance (Provision for family and dependants) Act 1975 was never intended to act as a springboard for disgruntled adult children to challenge the testamentary freedom of their parents just because they consider the provision, or lack of, to be unfair.
- Whilst some may view this judgment as a victory for charities, the door is still open for those seeking financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and the outcome will very much depend upon the facts of each individual case. The Court has to decide whether the outcome of the will is unreasonable and if so, what provision would be reasonable. This judgment is difficult to challenge on appeal given the broad range of decisions which could be reached by a judge. In this particular case, the district judge could have made a number of decisions, for instance, to reject the claim entirely or to make provision for housing (as the Court of Appeal did) or by way of a life interest.
- On the basis of the above, it remains difficult to advise on the merits of a claim when the range of outcomes is broad. However, it will be sensible for any charity faced with defending a potential claim to seek specialist advice at the outset, which can help to avoid becoming embroiled in Court proceedings.
For further information, please complete the form below.