Ilott v The Blue Cross
An adult daughter estranged from her mother could claim reasonable provision from the estate, but the court must respect the testator's wishes and the award for maintenance only is limited.
Facts
Mrs Jackson left almost all of her estate, worth about 486,000 pounds, to three animal charities, with which she had no particular connection. She left nothing to her only child, Mrs Ilott, from whom she had been estranged for many years after Mrs Ilott left home as a teenager to live with a man of whom her mother disapproved. Mrs Ilott was living on state benefits with her husband and children. She claimed reasonable provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The district judge awarded her 50,000 pounds, and the Court of Appeal increased the award to 163,000 pounds.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court allowed the charities' appeal and restored the district judge's award of 50,000 pounds. Lord Hughes said that the 1975 Act does not give the court power to rewrite a will because it thinks the result unfair. For a claimant other than a spouse, reasonable provision is limited to what is needed for maintenance, and the court must weigh all the factors in section 3, including the testator's wishes and the claims of the beneficiaries, even if they are charities. The district judge had been entitled to make the award he did, and the Court of Appeal had been wrong to interfere.
Related cases on cohabitants, family property and family provision
- Re Besterman (Deceased) [1984] Ch 458
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Re Coventry (Deceased) [1980] Ch 461
- Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336, [2020] Fam 129
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
