Member Article

Supreme Court decision clears confusion over Inheritance Act

Confusion over the laws governing the upholding of people’s wishes in their Wills, that clearly spell out who is and is not to benefit when we die, has been to laid to rest following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the long running case of Ilott versus Mitson.

Three animal charities named as the sole beneficiaries of Melita Jackson’s £500,000 estate won their case at the Supreme Court against her daughter who was left out of the Will.

The forty-year-old Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 at the centre of the appeal, exists to allow people to claim from an estate where they feel, and the court agrees, that reasonable financial provision has not been made for them when it should have been under the terms of the will, or intestacy provisions when one doesn’t exist.

The appeal was heard in the UK Supreme Court in December and last week a seven-strong Supreme Court unanimously allowed the charities’ appeal, announcing in their decision that the Court of Appeal had no proper basis for interfering with the judgment made by the District Judge.

Jane Senior, partner and head of the dispute resolution team at Midlands law firm Lodders says the decision not only proves that people’s wishes and Wills matter, but at last delivers some clarity on how the Act works to support them:

“The Court of Appeal judgement in favour of Mrs Jackson’s estranged daughter, whilst not representing new law as some commentators suggested, was seen to be a radical decision.

“The reversal of it means we go back to the historical position of how adult children’s claims are considered under the Inheritance Act and will now potentially limit future spurious claims.”

The long-running case of Ilott vs Mitson was originally heard in 2011 and then by the Court of Appeal in June 2015, based on the Inheritance Act that allows wills to be challenged by individuals who believe they have been unjustly excluded, and for wills to be varied to provide for any person who believes they have been short-changed.

The Act was used to support the appeal by Mrs Jackson’s daughter, Heather Ilott, to overturn her mother’s wishes to leave her out of any inheritance, and secure an award of more than £160,000.

“The Inheritance Act was never intended as a facilitator for disgruntled adult children to challenge their parents’ wishes, just because they may feel the Will was unfair if they haven’t benefitted from it to the degree they would have hoped,” says Jane. “Challenges of this nature will of course continue in the pursuit of financial provision, but what is important is that the judgement delivers a rebalancing of the law in favour of the deceased and represents an important victory for the Last Will and Testament.

“Not only has this judgement sent a strong signal that this is absolutely the case, but it has also, at last, delivers clear guidance from the highest court in the land for legal practitioners and people with Wills, who were previously uncertain about the influence and Court’s consideration of the Act sparked by the Ilott case.”

The Supreme Court hearing in December was the penultimate step in a five-year legal battle by Ms Ilott to challenge her mother’s decision not to leave her a single penny - a decision dating back 37 years, when her mother wrote her out of her will after Heather Ilott, had eloped.

The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), are each beneficiaries of Mrs Jackson’s will. They obtained leave to take the case to the UK Supreme Court over the England & Wales Court of Appeal’s (EWCA) decision in the case, challenging the increase, and saying that people should be free to choose beneficiaries.

The Supreme Court agreed, and that Ms Ilott should receive only the original amount of £50,000.

The Court’s ruling mirrors the harder line approach in another case last year, that was behind a ‘reasonable provision’ claim brought by a daughter on her deceased father’s estate, as Jane explains:

“Forty-one-year-old Ms Ames and her two teenage children are dependent on her long-term cohabitant, as she has no paid work. Ms Ames made a claim on her father’s estate under the Inheritance Act 1975, but the judge hearing the case dismissed the reasonable provision claim on the estate because, among other reasons, she was capable of working and her lack of employment was a ‘lifestyle choice’.”

Lodders is a premier law firm in Warwickshire, Cheltenham, the North Cotswolds, and Gloucestershire.

Established for over 230 years, Lodders in particular works with private individuals, business owners, family businesses, landowners, rural communities, real estate and property owners, developers and investors. The firm has 25 partners, a portfolio of sector and market specific legal teams, over 130 fee earners and support staff across its office network, and has recorded year-on-year growth in recent years.

For more information, visit: www.lodders.co.uk

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Lodders Solicitors LLP .