Charities should be treated no differently from any other beneficiary of a will when resolving disputes, seven Supreme Court judges heard today in a long running legal battle over a £468,000 bequest to animal charities. In Ilott v The Blue Cross and Others, the court is considing an appeal by three animal charities case against a Court of Appeal ruling setting aside a will on the grounds that it did not make reasonable provision for the testator's daughter.
For respondent Heather Ilott, barrister Brie Stevens-Hoare, of London set Hardwicke, dismissed a suggestion that charities enjoy a special status in wills. Ilott, who is in her fifties, made an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for ‘reasonable financial provision’ from the £468,000 estate of her mother Melita Jackson. Ilott had been excluded from the will when she left home with a boyfriend at the age of 17.
Instead, she left her estate to the Blue Cross, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
In the initial ruling on the challenge, handed down in 2007, the High Court awarded Ilott £50,000. Both parties appealed: Ilot claimed she had not been awarded enough while the charities said it was too much.
On appeal, Ilott was awarded £143,000 - to buy the rented home she was living in - plus an extra £20,000 for additional income.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the charities appealed.
On behalf of the charities today, barrister Penelope Reed of 5 Stone Buildings, said there was ‘no debate’ that charities are in a special position, which the Court of Appeal had admitted by saying they had received a ‘windfall’.
Stevens-Hoare rejected that notion. ‘In our submission it doesn’t,’ [show that charities are treated differently], Hoare said. ‘It’s exactly the comment you would expect to see to attributed to any beneficiaries of a will, whether they expected it, or if as it is for some, an unexpected bonus.’
Reed told the court that there were also questions over whether a house should be considered as ‘an asset or as somewhere to live’.
She said it would be wrong to consider housing as something that should be awarded in principle, especially given the circumstances of the estrangement and Ilott’s ‘lack of dependence on her mother.’
Much of the case centred on what would a ‘reasonable person’ would expect a parent to leave in a will.
Reed said Illot had ‘not lived her life expecting to benefit’ from her mother’s estate.
Lord Justice Sumption asked whether a reasonable person would regard a testator as having ‘a responsibility’ for their child’s welfare. ‘If the answer is no then I suspect this is the end of inquiry, If the answer is yes then you look at the reasons, if any, for not including their child in a will,’ he said.
Countering, Lady Hale said it would be a difficult question to answer as many ‘reasonable people’ had different views.
Sumption said the reason why charities were bringing the complaint had a ‘much wider reach’ than the mechanics of the particular case as it ‘affects legacy gifts generally’.
‘Some have an expectation that you inherit your parent’s wealth, others do not believe in inherited wealth therefore would not expect to benefit,’ she said.
Stevens-Hoare said Ilott was ‘financially independent from mother’ but not financially independent as she was dependant on the state–and so should be entitled to a share of the will.
The case was heard by Lord Justices Neuberger, Kerr, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Hughes as well as Lady Hale. A judgment is expected in the new year.
Ilott was epresented by the Bar Pro Bono Unit while the three charities are represented by London firm Wilsons Solicitors.
Charity bequests shouldn't have special status, Supreme Court hears
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire