Has the judgment in Ilott muddied the waters regarding an adult child’s claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Dependents) Act 1975, asks Martin Mears
- Following Ilott, the general principles laid down in Re Coventry and the decided authorities concerning the exercise of discretion in Inheritance Act cases remain good law.
-
The guidelines given in the decided cases are not consistently applied—as they were not by the Supreme Court itself.
The long awaited decision of the Supreme Court in Ilott v The Blue Cross and Others [2017] UKSC 17, [2017] All ER (D) 96 (Mar) has been received with little enthusiasm. In the words of one academic commentator: ‘Those advising beneficiaries facing claims will find little to help them weigh their chances of success.’ Is this true? And if it is, could their lordships have done a better job?
The facts
The facts of the case are well known. Melita Jackson died leaving a net estate of around £486,000, the bulk of which was left to various animal charities. She had one child (the claimant), Heather
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
