In recent years, a moral debate flowed from a decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ilott v. Mitson, which increased an award from £50,000 to £163,000. This was a claim by a daughter, who had been out of contact with her mother for many years. The mother made a will which left her out of the estate entirely and her £500,000 estate went to charities. This decision was seen as an attack on testamentary freedom. The mother and daughter had not been on speaking terms since the daughter left home at the age of 17 and got married to a man whom the mother did not approve of.
The daughter fell on hard times and she challenged her mother’s will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. A claim was made for ‘reasonable financial provision’ which means such provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstance for the applicant to receive for their maintenance.
There was an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the District Judge had decided the matter correctly and overturned the decision in the Court of Appeal, restoring the claim to the figure of £50,000. The decision of the highest court in the land gave guidance as to the law in this controversial area of a claim by an adult child. The decision probably reinstates the belief that adult children are going to find it difficult to bring a claim unless they are in financial difficulties. It also acknowledged the importance of testamentary freedom. It commented that although a claimant may be entitled to maintenance, it does not mean an entitlement to every type of maintenance.
Summerfield Browne Solicitors have offices in London, Birmingham, Cambridge, Oxford, Leicester and Market Harborough
