Success in the Court of Appeal: Ilott v Mitson & others

 

On 31st March 2011 judgement was handed down in the case of Ilott v Mitson & others in which John Collins, a barrister at Zenith Chambers appeared for the Claimant. The case has received national media attention and is a landmark decision in the area probate law.

 
Facts
The Appellant was the 50 year old only child of the Deceased. She was married with five children, a stay at home mother, living in accommodation rented from a housing association, and 75% of the family income was derived from state benefits. At First Instance District Judge Million allowed the Appellant’s claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 (“the Act”), finding that the will, which left a net estate of £486,000 primarily to three charities with which the deceased had no connection, and nothing to the Appellant, was not such as to make reasonable provision for the Appellant[i]. There was an appeal and a cross appeal to Eleanor King J who held that the District Judge had erred in law and erred in balancing the various factors under s.3 of the Act, and his decision had thus been “plainly wrong”[ii]. The Appellant appealed, permission for the second appeal having been given by Wilson LJ.
 

HELD: The Court of Appeal conducted a thorough review of the approach to be taken in adult children’s claims under the Act. The question whether the disposition makes reasonable financial provision for an applicant is not an exercise of discretion, but is a value judgment or qualitative decision. It is very much a matter for the first instance tribunal, there is room for a legitimate difference of opinion, and a decision should not be interfered with unless the appellate court is satisfied that the decision is plainly wrong. It is inappropriate to put a judicial gloss on the words of the statute. An adult child is in no different position from any other applicant; he does not need to show a moral obligation or special circumstances. District Judge Million correctly directed himself as to the question to be decided and then carried out the s.3 exercise in a sufficient manner. The Appellant’s appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Family Division for the Appellant’s appeal against the quantum of District Judge Million’s decision to be heard. 

HEATHER ILOTT  v (1) DAVID MITSON (2) MICHAEL LAND (3) BLUE CROSS (4) ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS (5) ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS  [2011] EWCA Civ 346  CA (Civ Div) (Sir Nicholas Wall (President Fam), Arden LJ, Black LJ)   31/3/2011    

A copy of District Judge Million’s Judgment can be obtained from Nicola Phillipson  nphillipson@zenithchambers.co.uk

 

Written by Nicola Phillipson a barrister at Zenith Chambers.


[i] A copy of District Judge Million’s Judgment can be obtained from Nicola Phillipson
Print pagePrintable Version