Ilott v Mitson & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 346 (31 March 2011)

Ilott v Mitson & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 346 (31 March 2011)

The District Judge correctly applied the statutory criteria and made a value judgment that the absence of provision for the appellant was unreasonable; there was no error of law or plainly wrong conclusion, and the appellate court should not have interfered with that judgment.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 346
Parties
Appellant: Heather Ilott; 1st Respondent: David Mitson; 2nd Respondent: Michael Land; 3rd Respondent: The Blue Cross; 4th Respondent: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; 5th Respondent: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Family Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Reasonable Financial Provision, Adult Child Claims, Testamentary Freedom, Maintenance
Family Law Wills and Probate Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Reasonable Financial Provision Adult Child Claims Testamentary Freedom Maintenance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Ilott

Appellant

David Mitson

1st Respondent

Michael Land

2nd Respondent

The Blue Cross

3rd Respondent

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

4th Respondent

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of the deceased made reasonable financial provision for the appellant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in law or in the balancing of section 3 factors under the Act
  3. 3 Whether an adult child must show a 'moral obligation' or 'special circumstances' to succeed under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge correctly applied the statutory criteria and made a value judgment that the absence of provision for the appellant was unreasonable; there was no error of law or plainly wrong conclusion, and the appellate court should not have interfered with that judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the appellant's appeal against the quantum of the District Judge's decision is to be heard by a judge other than Eleanor King J.
  • Parties are urged to consider compromise to avoid further costs.