Charities in Court

Cases

Zebra finches Brucie and Lucie, late residents of Surrey.

ITW v Z and M

This case, which was heard in private in the Court of Protection and identifies people by initials, involves an elderly woman who was born in 1922, had no children, a distant cousin and several wills. She also lacked testamentary capacity.

Between 2004 and 2008, the woman had a carer who had an enduring power of attorney, and withdrew nearly £180,000 from the woman's account allegedly for his own use. The carer was also the sole beneficiary of the woman's 2004 will. The woman was then put under the care of the Court of Protection.

The Court asked for, but had not received, satisfactory explanations from the carer regarding the withdrawn money. In earlier wills the woman had left gifts to nine charities, and the Court ordered a new Statutory Will - drafted by the Court - reinstating the charity beneficiaries and excluding the carer. The Court was also pursuing the sums taken by the carer.

Ilott v Mitson

In her 2002 will, Melita Jackson left several generous gifts to charities and nothing at all to her daughter – and she explained why.

Jackson died two years later, aged 70. Her estate was worth worth just under £500,000. Her main beneficiaries are The Blue Cross, the RSPB and the RSPCA.

Jackson included a letter with her will detailing her substantial estrangement from Heather Ilott, her only child. Ilott now has five children of her own, most of whom are adults.

Mother and daughter fell out when Heather was a teenager. Despite the passage of several decades, and the addition of five grandchildren, they never reconciled.

Ilott, who lives in a housing association property and struggles to make ends meet, challenged the will, arguing that under the Inheritance (Provision for Dependants) Act 1975, she was entitled to reasonable provision.

A County Court judge ruled that Ilott should receive £50,000, the High Court ruled that she should get nothing, and, in April 2011, the Appeals Court supported Ilott's contention that she was entitled to a slice of the pie. The case went back to the High Court, but the Appeals Court strongly recommended that all sides settle and not incur further costs.