header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 May 2017 / Martin Mears
Issue: 7746 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Puzzling times

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7746_mears

Has the judgment in Ilott muddied the waters regarding an adult child’s claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Dependents) Act 1975, asks Martin Mears
  • Following Ilott, the general principles laid down in Re Coventry and the decided authorities concerning the exercise of discretion in Inheritance Act cases remain good law.

  • The guidelines given in the decided cases are not consistently applied—as they were not by the Supreme Court itself.

The long awaited decision of the Supreme Court in Ilott v The Blue Cross and Others [2017] UKSC 17, [2017] All ER (D) 96 (Mar) has been received with little enthusiasm. In the words of one academic commentator: ‘Those advising beneficiaries facing claims will find little to help them weigh their chances of success.’ Is this true? And if it is, could their lordships have done a better job?

The facts

The facts of the case are well known. Melita Jackson died leaving a net estate of around £486,000, the bulk of which was left to various animal charities. She had one child (the claimant), Heather

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