Don't agree with this at all

As Charles Dickens wrote "the law is an ass"

Nothing has changed in 150 years, the justice system is still out of touch with reality.

 

Good morning ,its not the justice system its "Lady Justice Arden" again she certainly hasn't changed ,her finding were always a mystery to Woo she has made some strange decisions over the last few years,I always called her Mysterious Mary

 

I agree although it seems as though the woman who died had not previously had anything to do with the charities she willed her money to. Her daughter had already been awarded £50,000 by the court but this has now been uprated by Mysterious Mary.

We already have a law that allows the courts to change the disposition of inheritance in the case of children that are minors but I think this is going too far. I suppose that as Mary went to Harvard and is an arbitrator at The Hague she may not quite have the British attitude to these things!

 

Absolute disgrace. How dare the judge go against the clear, legally stated wishes contained within the deceased's will! Hope the woman comes back and haunts them both.

 

This is only Woos personal opinnion and not meant in anyway to cause any offence

Good morning @rosebay my friend I believe her Mother provided her with reasonable provision for 17 years until she voluntary left home,IMHO I don't think that the Mother was being unreasonable and Harsh

The Facts

The deceased died on 10 July 2004, leaving a net estate of £486,000. • She left the entirety of her residuary estate equally between the Blue Cross Animal Welfare Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (“the Charities”). • The deceased appeared to have had no connection with the Charities during her lifetime. Also, there was no evidence that she had any particular love of or interest in animals or birds. • The deceased had an only child, Heather Ilott. However, the deceased made no provision for Mrs Ilott under her will. She left a rather ill-tempered letter of wishes, explaining why she had left nothing to her daughter. Ilott v Mitson [2011] EWCA Civ 346 – further dangers for litigating charities?

The recent case of Ilott v Mitson shows the courts’ increased willingness to entertain claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 made by adult children. This could have a significant adverse impact on charities, which can be more susceptible to claims than family members, and which often have no direct personal links to the deceased. Judgment in the case was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 31 March 2011. • Mrs Ilott, aged 50, was married with five children and lived modestly. She had no physical or mental incapacity, had been estranged from her mother for 26 years, chose to marry (without her mother in attendance), chose not to work, and was not dependent on the deceased. • On finding out that she had effectively been disinherited in favour of the Charities, Mrs Ilott brought proceedings under the Inheritance Act.

 

Good link there Woo, so it's not as if Mrs Ilott is a child, she doesn't work, so that would be a reason why she is in financial straits.

It's all very sad as the deceased had 5 grandchildren whom presumably she never had any contact with, what a sad waste of her life and a loss to the grandchildren too who never knew their granny.

I can see right and wrong on both sides, but surely someone's last wishes, which lets face it are crystal clear, need to be respected, after all she can no longer argue her case from beyond the grave.

 

Of course the big winners out of this will be the lawyers, I wonder how much of the £486,000 has been wasted in their fees?