15/03/2017
Judith Bromley
Three charities have won a landmark case against a woman cut out of her mother's Will at the Supreme Court.
Heather Ilott, an only child, was excluded from her mother’s will after eloping in 1978 at the age of 17 with her now husband. Mother and daughter never reconciled and when 70-year-old Melita Jackson died in 2004, she left most of her £486,000 estate to The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), despite having any real connection with them.
Mrs Ilott, a mother of five, had been living on state benefits with no pension when she challenged the will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act in 2005. In 2007 a district judge awarded her £50,000 after ruling she had been "unreasonably" excluded. Mrs Ilott applied for a larger share of the money and the figure was increased by the Court of Appeal in 2015, granting her £164,000.
The charities counter appealed the ruling, stating that people are entitled to leave their estate to beneficiaries of their choosing. The Supreme Court agreed, reducing Mrs Ilott’s inheritance back to the original £50,000.
The charities argued that the appeal had been brought as a matter of principle that people should be free to choose who will benefit from their estate. Judith Bromley, head of wills and probate at Russell & Russell, agrees, saying that: “The judgement was a sensible decision made for testamentary freedom”. The situation, however, has raised questions from some of the judges about how the current law surrounding the Inheritance Act should be administered in the future.
Please note that this article is meant as general guidance and not intended as legal or professional advice. Updates to the law may have changed since this article was published.