Lawyers have given a mixed reaction to a Court of Appeal decision to override a will that left an entire estate to animal charities and nothing to the deceased’s child.
Heather Illot’s mother, Melita Jackson, died in 2004 leaving a legacy of £486,000 to animal charities. The pair had been estranged since Illot left home at 17 to marry her husband, with whom she went on to have five children.
Mrs Jackson—who had no connection with the charities during her lifetime—was described in court as acting in an “unreasonable, capricious and harsh” way to her only daughter.
Illot, who was represented pro bono and lives in “straitened” circumstances with her husband, sought an award for “reasonable financial provision” under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The RSPB and RSPCA argued that Illot’s income needs were already met by state benefits and she should be awarded no more than £3,000-£5,000.
However, the Court of Appeal held that she should receive £164,000, which would allow her to buy her own home and have £20,000 left over, in Illot v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797.
Samantha Ewing, associate at Thomas Eggar, says: “The ruling potentially means that the right of testamentary freedom in England and Wales, to leave your estate to any person you wish, will be diminished as the doors have been opened wider for estranged children to claim from their parents’ estates even where they were held jointly responsible for the failure of reconciliation (as in this case).
“The clear warning to those making wills is that while testamentary freedom still exists, wills which appear spiteful or unusual in excluding those who may have expected to inherit may now be much easier to attack.”
However, Stephen Richards, partner at Withers, disagrees: “This judgment is not as ground-breaking as the press suggests, it concerns a specific point on appeal and does not introduce a wholesale change as has been suggested. The case is fact specific.”
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=351b3b8d_1)
