Ilott v The Blue Cross and others [2017]

1. Facts:

• In Ilott v Blue Cross, the mother of the claimant, Heather Ilott, excluded her estranged daughter from her will.

• The mother left her estate, valued at £500,000, to three animal charities.

• Heather Ilott initially received an award of £50,000 from the court, which was intended to provide for her maintenance.

• The case underwent a series of appeals, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, marking the first case under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 to reach this level.

2. Outcome:

• The Supreme Court reinstated the original award of £50,000.

• The court held that the award was intended to provide for Heather Ilott's maintenance, not to confer a capital sum.

• The decision reaffirmed the notion that the court’s role under the Inheritance Act is to ensure adequate provision for maintenance, rather than adjusting inheritances to meet broader expectations or confer substantial capital.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Maintenance vs. Capital: The ruling highlights the distinction between providing for maintenance and conferring capital. The court’s decision underscores that awards under the Inheritance Act are intended to support maintenance needs rather than significantly alter the distribution of an estate or confer substantial capital.

• Role of the Inheritance Act: Ilott v Blue Cross illustrates the application of the Inheritance Act 1975 in cases where individuals feel excluded from their inheritance. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the Act’s purpose of ensuring adequate maintenance rather than re-distributing estates to meet personal expectations.

• Judicial Precedent: The case establishes important precedent for how courts should approach claims under the Inheritance Act. It clarifies that the scope of the Act is limited to maintenance provisions and does not extend to altering substantial estate allocations made by the deceased.

• Impact on Future Claims: The ruling provides guidance for future claims under the Inheritance Act, emphasising that claimants should not expect to receive capital sums but rather support for their ongoing maintenance needs. This approach ensures that the intentions of the deceased, particularly in cases where charitable bequests are involved, are respected while still providing reasonable support for claimants.

• Legal and Social Implications: The decision reflects a balance between respecting testamentary freedom and providing for dependants, aligning with the legal framework that priorities maintenance while acknowledging the validity of charitable legacies. It also addresses the broader social implications of inheritance and the rights of estranged family members in challenging testamentary dispositions.