ON 15 March 2017 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Ilott v Mitson & Others relating to the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975 which is the legislation that allows a court to make reasonable provision for those who do not benefit from the estate of a deceased person.
The decision was long awaited and the publicity that has been generated by this case meant that its outcome will influence not just legal practitioners but also families and charities.
Mrs Ilott had made a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975 challenging the will of her late mother, Mrs Jackson. Mrs Jackson died in 2004 and left her entire estate of £486,000 among various charities and excluded her only child Mrs Ilott entirely. Mrs Jackson left a letter explaining why she had excluded her.
The pair had been estranged since Mrs Ilott was 17; a period of 26 years. Mrs Ilot lives with her husband and five children in a council property on limited means. She made a claim under the Act seeking some financial provision from her late mother’s estate. In 2007, a County Judge agreed with her claim and considered that her strained financial circumstances were such that she was awarded £50,000. Mrs Ilott was not satisfied with this and appealed to the High Court, who disagreed with the first decision and awarded her nothing. She appealed again and the award of £50,000 was reinstated. The Court of Appeal then granted Mrs Ilott the sum of £143,000 to enable her to purchase her house with an option to draw down a further £20,000.
However, the charities then appealed to the Supreme Court who unanimously allowed the charities to appeal this decision and restored the original decision; making an award of £50,000 to Mrs Ilott.
So how does this decision affect the public? Ultimately, the law has not changed. This case has reconfirmed the general principle which is that you can leave your estate to anyone that you want to. The law does, however, make it possible for someone who is financially dependent on a person who has died, to make claim for a reasonable provision for them. However, the passage of this case through the courts has demonstrated the wide powers the court has and the very little guidance or structure there is regarding this contentious area.
The journey to the Supreme Court’s final decision was far from clear and many would see this as a great victory for charities as in the end Mrs Ilott was awarded the sum of £50,000 which represented only about 10 per cent of her mother’s estate.
In handing down her judgement, Lady Hale raised some challenging questions regarding the nature of family obligations, the relationship between these obligations and the State and also the freedom of a person to dispose of their assets as they see fit.
The current legislation does not provide clear answers to these questions. Whether this case does turn out to be a landmark case may well depend on whether the Law Commission takes note and addresses these issues to provide clarity for all in the future.
However, in the meantime, the case has, over the last 10 years, laid bare a very bitter family breakdown which has seen the charitable beneficiaries fight against an estranged daughter.
For more information, contact Borneo Martell Turner Coulston on 01604 622101 or visit the website www.bmtclaw.co.uk
