Court bids
A district court awarded Ilott £50,000 in 2007, which was deemed to be a ‘reasonable provision’, in accordance with the Inheritance (Provision for Family Independence) Act 1975.
The charities did not appeal the decision.
After several other court appearances, Ilott’s provision was increased in 2015 when the court of appeal ruled that she would otherwise face a life of poverty.
She was awarded £143,000 to buy the housing association property in which she lived and a further £20,000.
During the hearing, Jackson was described as capricious and harsh and was said to have unreasonably excluded Ilott from her will.
Animal charities appeal
The charities, to which Jackson bequeathed her estate, appealed the court’s decision to increase Ilott’s provision largely on principle because of the potential impact of the decision on other cases.
The supreme court found in favour of the charities on Wednesday and reduced Ilott’s sum to the original £50,000.
Open door
“While reducing the amount, still granting Heather Ilott part of her mother’s estate keeps the door open for other cases of a similar kind to progress,” said OMW’s tax and financial planning expert Griffin.
“To avoid the scenario altogether people should consider lifetime planning using trusts, which have both tax benefits and offer the opportunity to gain greater control over the distribution of wealth on death.
“A scenario such as the Ilott case is also unlikely to occur as the 1975 Act does not apply to lifetime planning. Plus, distribution of trust assets against the terms of a trust would be a breach and could be legally challenged. A bonus is trusts are confidential, so unlike wills they do not currently become public knowledge.
She concluded: “The distribution of wealth upon death has become more complicated in recent years. It is important to carefully plan for how you wish your money to be divided upon your death and seeking financial advice is the best place to start.”
