The RSPCA, Blue Cross and RSPB are “surprised and disappointed” by a Court of Appeal ruling that has seen a woman left out of her mother’s will awarded £163,000.

Melita Jackson died in 2004, leaving her entire estate of around £486,000 to The Blue Cross, the RSPB and RSPCA, subject to a legacy of £5,000 in favour of the BBC Benevolent Fund.

Jackson’s daughter Heather Ilott was excluded from the will, and in an accompanying letter Jackson explained her reasoning and instructed executors to fight any attempt from Ilott to contest the will.

However, in 2007 the court awarded Ilott £50,000 to provide for her maintenance needs stating she had been unreasonably excluded despite “obviously straitened and needy financial circumstances”. Ilott appealed the decision seeking a larger sum, and an appeal was granted last year after initially being rejected.

The Court of Appeal yesterday awarded around Ilott £163,000, ruling that reasonable financial provision can only be made by providing her sufficient funds to buy her home. The value awarded provides for purchase of the home and £20,000 to provide a small immediate amount of additional income.

Wilsons Solicitors partner James Aspden represented the three charities, and said the decision is worrying for anyone who values having the freedom to choose who will receive their property when they die.

“We have now seen four separate sets of judges reach quite different conclusions in this case, having considered exactly the same set of facts over a period of some eight years. The decision to allow this very late, further appeal against a judgement delivered in 2007 can only encourage others to appeal and will further complicate the court’s task when deciding Inheritance Act claims.”

David Bowles, assistant director external affairs of RSPCA said legacy income pays for one out of every two animals the charity saves and much of its work would not be possible without legacies.

“This court decision goes against a person’s desire to give their money to whomever they wish. We are immensely grateful for the kindness of people like Mrs Jackson who choose to remember the needs of animals in her will and hope this does not stop others continuing to give money to help suffering animals.”

Blue Cross chief executive Sally de la Bedoyere said the charity depends on the generosity of its supporters, and always endeavours to fulfil their wishes.

“Over the past eight years we have defended the wishes left by Mrs Jackson to the very best of our abilities so are deeply saddened that the courts have decided not to honour them.”

RSPB chief executive Mike Clarke said it is regrettable that courts sometimes need to get involved in interpreting people’s wills.

“Not only is it damaging to the work of charities, but it may also cause concern to people who intend to leave a gift to a charity they feel passionately about. I am somewhat reassured by the comments from our lawyer, who tells me the circumstances of this sad case are very unusual.”

James Lister, senior associate at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said that while it should be remembered that this is a very fact specific case, charitable beneficiaries will be concerned by its consequences.

“That the Court of Appeal is apparently willing to make such an award in the face of very clear expressions of wishes by a testator will remain of concern to will draftsmen and beneficiaries alike,” Lister said.

Andrew Wilkinson, partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said that the ruling does not change the law in this area. But the publicity around the case could have the biggest impact by reminding people they cannot always prevent family members from benefitting from their estate.

“One key factor in this case was that Melita Jackson did not have a significant connection with the charities that she left money to in her will. Charities that are able to demonstrate a long-term relationship with donors through evidence of regular giving or volunteering will be in a stronger position if the will is challenged.”

Share Story: