Ilott v Mitson & Ors

Ilott v Mitson & Ors

The District Judge correctly applied the statutory test and exercised the required value judgment under section 3 of the 1975 Act; his conclusion that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for the appellant was not plainly wrong and should not have been overturned by the appellate judge.

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 / Second Appeal From High Court, Family Division, to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Reasonable Financial Provision, Adult Child Claims, Testamentary Freedom, Appellate Review Standards
Succession Law Family Law Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Reasonable Financial Provision Adult Child Claims Testamentary Freedom Appellate Review Standards

Case Brief

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 11 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 / Second Appeal From High Court, Family Division, to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in law or principle in finding that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for the applicant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the appellate court was correct to overturn the District Judge's value judgment on reasonable provision

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge correctly applied the statutory test and exercised the required value judgment under section 3 of the 1975 Act; his conclusion that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for the appellant was not plainly wrong and should not have been overturned by the appellate judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order of Eleanor King J dismissing the appellant's claim is set aside.
  • The appellant's appeal against the quantum of the District Judge's order is to be heard by a different judge of the Family Division.