Ball v Ball [2017] 1 EWHC 1750 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

The Deceased was married to James Ball. They had had eleven children, including the three claimants and eight of the nine defendants. In or around 1991, the family split, when the three claimants reported their father to the police for sexually abusing them when they were younger. The Deceased felt that the complaints were exaggerated, and was annoyed that they had been made public. As a result, on 27 May 1992 the Deceased made a will excluding those three claimants from benefit, dividing her estate between her eight remaining children and one of her grandsons. The will was professional ...

Inheritance Act: Cutting the cord

Lottie Tyler reviews how an adult child’s conduct can affect a claim brought under the Inheritance Act (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 ‘It appears that the courts will often focus on preserving a wide discretion, but this creates a level of unpredictability as to the weight conduct is given.’ The successful claims brought by …
This post is only available to members.

Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2015 # 153

The appeal concerned the quantification of an award for maintenance pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act). Section 1 of the 1975 Act confers the right on, among others, a child of the deceased to apply for an order if the will of the deceased or the intestacy rules did not make reasonable provision for that person. The provision was limited to awards of maintenance.

The appellant, who was an adult, was the only child of the deceased and was raised by the deceased, her father having died about t...

Quantum: Of greatest benefit?

The Court of Appeal judgment in Ilott v Mitson highlights the problem of quantifying reasonable financial provision for the adult child under s2 of the I(PFD)A 1975. Miranda Allardice explains ‘To some the passing of wealth outside the immediate family is anathema; to others it is a valuable freedom.’ The issue of quantum in the …
This post is only available to members.

Wright v Waters & anr [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2015 #147

The claimant was Patricia Wright who made a claim against the estate of her mother Mary Waters. Mrs Waters died on 29 December 2010 leaving an estate worth £138,000.

Mrs Waters had two children – Patricia and David. Patricia (a widow) has one child Victoria and two grandchildren. Patricia suffers from numerous medical conditions and is wheelchair bound. Her outgoings exceed her income.

David married Susan and has four children.

Mrs Waters made a will in January 2009 leaving legacies of £5000 to each of David’s children, £7,000 between her sister-in-law and a niece an...

Inheritance (Provision For Family And Dependants) Act 1975: After Ilott

Miranda Allardice and Ruth Hughes consider the problem of provision for the adult child under s2 of I(PFD)A 1975 ‘While the definition of maintenance may be wide, identifying a need for maintenance does not mean that the same will be satisfied. The important qualifying phrase is “what would be reasonable in all the circumstances of …
This post is only available to members.

Ilott v Mitson & ors [2014] EWHC 542 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | May 2014 #139

This was an appeal against quantum in an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The deceased was called Melita Jackson and the appellant was her estranged daughter.

The proceedings had a protracted history. There was an initial hearing of the claim in front of District Judge Million on 7 August 2007. He found as facts that the appellant and her husband and family lived modestly in a housing association house. They were heavily dependent on state benefits. The appellant did not work and her husbands income was small. The family...

Wills: Attack on testamentary freedom?

After Ilott v Mitson testators should be careful when excluding children from their will, as Emma Carey explains ‘The appeal and cross-appeal was heard in 2009 and the judge, Eleanor King J, found not only that the district judge had failed to apply the law properly, but also that he had erred in balancing the …
This post is only available to members.