Supreme Court Ilott judgement.

24567

Comments

  • TBagpuss wrote: »
    No, the court didn't have the power to decide that, the issue wasn't whether she had a claim, it was about whther the decision made by the CofA to overturn the original judgment was correct; i/.e. had the original Judge made a mistake either in how in interpreted the law or the facts. The Supreme court found thathe had not, so his original decision was reinstated.

    This means that she gets the £50K she was originally awarded, less any costs she may have to pay.

    The judgment does mention that an agreement had ben reached so I suspect that the charities agreed not to seek costs from her even thouh they 'won', as they pursued the case in part because they through it had wider implications for them.

    Her own legal team were working pro bono so she won't have to to pay them
    It is also worth stating that the Court was quite critical of the failure by the Goverment to implement the recommedations of the Law Commission report on the legislation. It is probably not a big vote winner so I doubt wee shall see any change in the short term.
  • Pollycat
    Pollycat Posts: 34,582
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Savvy Shopper!
    Forumite
    TBagpuss wrote: »
    Her own legal team were working pro bono so she won't have to to pay them

    I wonder how much time & effort they have put into this 13 year long battle.
  • TW1234
    TW1234 Posts: 209
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    I do not understand the basic pertinence of this case.
    How does it determine whether a testator has absolute right to determine their beneficiaries? Myy understanding in this case Ilott was intentionally excluded from benefit but has received an award of £50k despite of not being a dependent.
    Most of the argument seems to follow on from an agreement that some entitl;ement was due, but the quantum was the subject of dispute.
  • Yorkshireman99
    Yorkshireman99 Posts: 5,470 Forumite
    You need to read the full judgement to understand all the nuances. Have you done that?
  • paddy's_mum
    paddy's_mum Posts: 3,977
    I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    In my view, far too little has been said about the source of Mother's wealth. It would appear that most of it came from compensation paid to her for the death of her husband in an industrial accident just before their child was born.

    I dislike the phrase "turning in his grave" as both mawkish and assuming but in this case, I would think that Father would indeed be turning in his grave that his daughter has lost him, his love, care and support through her life and ultimately was discarded by her mother for defiance.

    I believe that the original will says far more about Mother than it does about Daughter.

    What normal person allows anger and malice to prevent them forming a relationship of any kind with grandchildren, who are themselves innocent of any wrongdoing?
  • Pollycat
    Pollycat Posts: 34,582
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Savvy Shopper!
    Forumite
    In my view, far too little has been said about the source of Mother's wealth. It would appear that most of it came from compensation paid to her for the death of her husband in an industrial accident just before their child was born.

    I dislike the phrase "turning in his grave" as both mawkish and assuming but in this case, I would think that Father would indeed be turning in his grave that his daughter has lost him, his love, care and support through her life and ultimately was discarded by her mother for defiance.

    I believe that the original will says far more about Mother than it does about Daughter.

    What normal person allows anger and malice to prevent them forming a relationship of any kind with grandchildren, who are themselves innocent of any wrongdoing?
    Maybe it was Mrs Ilott who was angry and malicious and wouldn't allow her Mother to see her children.

    We have no idea what went on between the Mother, daughter and son-in-law for all those years.
  • Yorkshireman99
    Yorkshireman99 Posts: 5,470 Forumite
    Pollycat wrote: »
    Maybe it was Mrs Ilott who was angry and malicious and wouldn't allow her Mother to see her children.

    We have no idea what went on between the Mother, daughter and son-in-law for all those years.
    Read the full judgement that tells you more. The edited version published for the press does not, obviously, tell the full story. There is little doubt that Mrs. Ilott's mother was an extrremely nasty, and indeed, vindictive woman who wanted to cause her daughter, and her grandchildren, as much difficulty as she possibly could. Quite shameful.
  • Malthusian
    Malthusian Posts: 10,898
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    There is little doubt that Mrs. Ilott's mother was an extrremely nasty, and indeed, vindictive woman who wanted to cause her daughter, and her grandchildren, as much difficulty as she possibly could. Quite shameful.

    Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Not giving someone your money is not "causing them difficulty". And I have read the full judgment.

    The reason the family Ilott were in financial difficulty was because both Mrs Ilott and her husband were permanently unemployed.
  • TW1234
    TW1234 Posts: 209
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    In my view, far too little has been said about the source of Mother's wealth. It would appear that most of it came from compensation paid to her for the death of her husband in an industrial accident just before their child was born.

    The source of the wealth is irrelevant, other than on any moral responsibility consideration. The estate was the property of the deceased and the right over its disposition is the only matter of argument.
  • I suggest you read what Mrs Ilott's mother said in her will which makes it quite clear that she did not want her daughter to inherit anything and gave specific instructions that the executors were to strongly contest any attempt to vary the will in Mrs. Ilott's favour. Given that she was well aware that her daughter was in very poor financial circumstances shows that she was a nasty and vindictive person. What decent grandparent would fail to make some provision in her will to alleviate the poverty that her grandchildren had lived in all their lives? That is the issue that needs addressing as far as making provision for families.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards