On 15th March 2017 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark judgment in a daughter’s claim for financial provision against her mother’s estate. The judgment offers courts further down the judiciary chain guidance in considering cases whereby claims for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (The 1975 act) are brought.
The case of Ilott v The Blue Cross and others [2017] UKSC 17 concerned a claim for reasonable financial provision against the estate of Mrs Jackson by her daughter, Mrs Ilott. Mrs Jackson and Mrs Ilott were estranged for 26 years and upon her death Mrs Jackson’s Will contained no provision for the benefit of her daughter. Rather, she left her monies to various charities including the Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Mrs Illott therefore claimed under the 1975 act as she felt she was not adequately provided for.
District Judge Million ruled that Illott was entitled to £50,000 for the provision of reasonable maintenance under the 1975 act though upon appeal the Court of Appeal considered this amount to be insufficient and awarded Mrs Illot £143,000 with an option of a further £20,000 to supplement her state benefits. In providing this decision the Court of Appeal claimed the District Judge had made fundamental errors of principle for two reasons. The first is that the District Judge said, in light of the long estrangement and Mrs Ilott’s independence, the financial provision award should be limited, but he did not specify what the award would have been had these factors not played a part. Secondly, the judge made his award without knowing what the impact on Mrs Ilott’s state benefits would be. The three charities appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal’s decision was overturned as the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in applying the law under the 1975 Act.
In light of the Supreme Court’s support for the decision of the District judge it is interesting to note that the judge was entitled to take into account the relationship between the mother and her daughter. The Supreme Court therefore highlighted the notion of testamentary freedom in English law. Testators can therefore be somewhat comforted in assuming their testamentary wishes will hold greater value now that the decision in Illott has been handed down, but should still explain his or her reasons clearly for not benefitting certain members of the family in an accompanying Letter of Wishes. Ultimately, this will not stop ‘nuisance’ claims being brought against an estate under the 1975 act, however, as the challenge to an estate is still a legal right; the success of such claims is likely to be hindered by the recent decision and it would be wise for applicants to thoroughly assess their own income and outgoings and the effect of any award on any state benefits which they receive. Inheritance should therefore not be expected or presumed in all cases. In Illot, for example the intended charities under Mrs Jackson’s Will need not justify their entitlement as they were, quite simply, the beneficiaries under her Will.
Please share the article
