Ilott
Mitson
The Supreme Court decision – what does this mean for claims by adult children under the
Inheritance Act 1975?
Now that the Supreme Court have handed down their judgment on
this case, and the matter has been reviewed by many contentious
probate practitioners, we can look at what the judgment says and
what effect it will have for other adult childen who wish to make a
claim against their parent’s Estate.
The case of Ilott V Mitson and others
[2015] EWCA Civ 797 was brought by
a disinherited adult daughter to seek
financial provision from the Estate of
her estranged mother. The daughter,
Heather Ilott, had been estranged
from her mother Mrs Jackson for 26
years after she left home at 17 to
live with Mr Ilott. Mrs Jackson did
not approve of her partner, Mr Illott.
Despite several reconciliation attempts,
the two remained estranged until Mrs
Jackson’s death in 2004. Mrs Jackson
left a Will executed in 2002 which cut
her daughter out completely, leaving all
her Estate to three charities - The Blue
Cross, RSPB and RSPCA (the Charities),
whom she had no links with. Mrs Ilott
made claim against the Estate, claiming
that her mother ought to have made
some financial provision for her. The
charities opposed her claim, arguing
that Mrs Jackson ought to be able
to leave her Estate to whomever she
wishes.
The Court Hearings
The case is a long running affair, starting
in the County Court in 2007 and ending
up in the Supreme Court in late 2016
with the judgment being published on
15 March 2017. In the first hearing,
District Judge Million decided that, after
considering all the circumstances, Mrs
Jackson ought to have made reasonable
financial provision for her daughter, and
he awarded her a lump sum of £50,000,
which would provide an income of
£4,000 per year from the Estate.
Mrs Ilott appealed to the High Court
to seek a higher award; the Charities
cross-appealed. They found in the
Charities’ favour and dismissed the
claim. Mrs Ilott appealed to the Court of
84
Appeal. That court found that Mrs Ilott
should have received some financial
provision from her mother, and that
the District Judge h ad considered the
correct aspects of the legislation. They
remitted the question of how much she
should have back down to the High
Court.
The High Court found that District
Judge Million had made a reasonable
award of £50,000 and they upheld this
amount. Mrs Illott also appealed that
decision; the case went back to the
Court of Appeal for a second time,
to consider the value which should
be awarded to Mrs Illott. That Court
awarded her £143,000, which would
enable her to purchase her home from
the Housing Association, and an option
of up to £20,000 lump sum which would
produce a small yearly income.
The final appeal by the Charities to the
Supreme Court was made and that
court heard the case in December 2016.
The Court considered the judgments
of the lower courts, and allowed the
Charities’ appeal. They reinstated
District Judge Million’s order and
awarded £50,000 to Mrs Illott.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that “this case raises
some profound questions about
the nature of family obligations, the
relationship between family obligations
and the state, and the relationship
between the freedom of property
owners to dispose of their property
as they see fit, and their duty to fulfil
their family obligations. All are raised
by the facts of this case but none is
answered by the legislation” (Lady Hale).
The legislation does not set out what
weight the court (or parties generally
when considering these claims) should
attribute to each factor under section 3
of the Inheritance (Provision for Family
and Dependants) Act 1975 and each
factor in the case.
When should reasonable financial
provision be made?
It is generally accepted that people
can leave their money to whomever
they want. This means they can leave
out some people and favour others.
However, there has always been a route
to make a claim against an Estate, via
the Inheritance (Provision for Family
and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the 1975
Act’). Spouses, civil partners, children
and dependants are able to make a
claim if they were not given reasonable
financial provision out of the Estate of
the deceased. Children, such as Mrs
Ilott, can claim for maintenance only
although what counts as maintenance
can be quite broad.
Once a claimant has established that he
or she is a particular type of applicant
allowed under section 1 of the 1975 Act,
they will need to consider whether the
Will or intestacy rules make reasonable
financial provision, and if not, what
reasonable financial provision ought to
be made.
The 1975 Act sets out factors which
a Court must consider (and therefore
so must any party considering such a
claim) when deciding whether the Will
or intestacy rules make reasonable
financial provision for the Applicant, and
if not, what provision ought to be made.
These factors (in section 3 of the Act)
include:
• The financial resources and needs of
the applicant, and other beneficiaries
• The obligations and responsibilities of
the deceased towards the applicant
and other beneficiaries
• The size of the estate
• Any physical or mental disabilities
• Any other matter including conduct,
which in the circumstances the court
may consider relevant.