The Supreme Court has ruled against the daughter of a woman who left her estate to animal charities with which she had no connection during her lifetime.
In Ilott v The Blue Cross & Ors [2017] UKSC 17, seven justices unanimously held that the bulk of Melita Jackson’s six-figure estate should go to the charities, as her will stated.
Her daughter, who had been estranged for 26 years and lived in straitened circumstances, had brought a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. She will receive £50,000.
Delivering judgment, Lady Hale surveyed the “unsatisfactory state of the present law, giving as it does no guidance as to the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether an adult child is deserving or undeserving of reasonable maintenance”. She expressed “regret that the Law Commission did not reconsider the fundamental principles underlying such claims when last they dealt with this topic in 2011”.
Jonathan Fowles, of Serle Court, said the judgment would be a “relief for charities”.
“The Supreme Court recognised their reliance on legacies in wills and that claims under the 1975 Act do affect their interests. The court also acknowledged the significance of Mrs Jackson’s choice of charities, even though she had no connection with them during her lifetime.”
Paul Davidoff, partner at Moon Beever, said: "We now know that, in England and Wales, we can still disinherit our adult children (even in favour of charities), provided that they have enough to support themselves. So, if we intend to disinherit a child, we need to bear in mind their financial circumstances. From the child’s point of view, it does not matter if it was 'unfair' or 'unreasonable' to be excluded from inheriting. What is critical is whether, objectively, the child has enough to live off day to day: this can vary enormously—indeed, the child may have dependents of their own. Of course, a lengthy estrangement or appalling behaviour by a child is bound to affect the amount awarded by a court."
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
