header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 June 2016 / Giselle Davies , Giselle Davies
Issue: 7703 / Categories: Features , Charities
printer mail-detail

A fatal flaw?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7703_davies

Is it goodbye to freedom of testamentary disposition, ask Giselle Davies & Bethan Walsh
  • The aftermath of Ilott v Mitson and impact on charities.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797, [2016] 1 All ER 932, received widespread press coverage and sparked debate about leaving money to charity to the detriment of family members. Mrs Heather Ilott was estranged from her mother, Mrs Melita Jackson, following Ilott’s elopement with her now husband, almost 40 years before Jackson’s death. Jackson left her entire £500,000 estate to three charities and nothing to Ilott. Following a legal battle lasting several years, and in spite of her mother making it clear that she did not wish her daughter to inherit anything, Ilott was eventually awarded £164,000. The Court of Appeal (CofA) found that Jackson had acted in an “unreasonable, capricious and harsh” manner towards her daughter and Ilott’s personal hardship and family history led the CofA to award her £164,000.

Although the CofA handed down its judgment last year,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll