Supreme Court Ilott judgement.

Yorkshireman99 · 19 March 2017 at 1:53PM

I have not been taking sides on this and have made that very clear several times. I believe the decision made by the Supreme Court was legally correct and as such that is an end to it. If Parliament wish to change the law then they have that opportunity and you, along with anyone else, can lobby them to do so or to maintain the status quo. Sadly life in general is not necessarily fair and it is also imperfect.

Malthusian · 20 March 2017 at 3:51PM

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

On your last point I disagree because the Court had far more information on which to make a judgement that we do. Nor do we have much information to judge what circumstances are the cause of the Ilott's long term unemployent so to suggest they may be at fault without that information is unfair.

Of course it's possible that both of them have some sort of long-term disability that makes them incapable of any kind of work for life. (Except for the husband to occasionally make his way to a film set and stand around in the background.) It is however extremely unlikely. But as you say, we don't know.

I don't believe the Courts are a pushover in calculating what a fair amount, and how it should be structured so I am content to accept their decision. In fact £50,000, structured over a period of time in the absence of any MTB is not going to last for long even if it is spent wisely. The family would certainly not be well off by any means.

Indeed. That just makes it seem rather pointless to deny however many fluffy kittens could have been provided with a warm safe home if it had been left to the animal charities as Mrs Jackson wanted.

Pollycat · 20 March 2017 at 5:26PM

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Nor do we have much information to judge what circumstances are the cause of the Ilott's long term unemployent so to suggest they may be at fault without that information is unfair.

I believe the judgement said that Mrs Ilott chose to stay at home after the birth of her first child, the District Judge found that 'perfectly understandable'.

unholyangel · 21 March 2017 at 8:53AM

Malthusian wrote: »

Of course it's possible that both of them have some sort of long-term disability that makes them incapable of any kind of work for life. (Except for the husband to occasionally make his way to a film set and stand around in the background.) It is however extremely unlikely. But as you say, we don't know.

Indeed. That just makes it seem rather pointless to deny however many fluffy kittens could have been provided with a warm safe home if it had been left to the animal charities as Mrs Jackson wanted.

http://www.wilsonslaw.com/uploads/news/Ilott_versus_mitson.pdf

That page gives a little insight as to why DJ Million found that reasonable provision had not been made. It includes a statement that neither the applicant or any beneficiary had any disability. Interesting to note that DJ Million had also allowed the charities their trial costs from the £50,000 awarded.

As for why she didn't work. I believe it was said in one of the previous hearings that she had elected to stay home to take care of the children and later, her home.

The husbands circumstances were never detailed beyond earning capacity I believe - but then I wouldn't expect them to be given he isn't the one with a claim to the estate.

Yorkshireman99 · 21 March 2017 at 11:03AM

unholyangel wrote: »

http://www.wilsonslaw.com/uploads/news/Ilott_versus_mitson.pdf

That page gives a little insight as to why DJ Million found that reasonable provision had not been made. It includes a statement that neither the applicant or any beneficiary had any disability. Interesting to note that DJ Million had also allowed the charities their trial costs from the £50,000 awarded.

As for why she didn't work. I believe it was said in one of the previous hearings that she had elected to stay home to take care of the children and later, her home.

The husbands circumstances were never detailed beyond earning capacity I believe - but then I wouldn't expect them to be given he isn't the one with a claim to the estate.

Sadly the quoted passage does not help much as it has been superceded by the Supreme Court judgement. The Suprme Court judgement suggest to me is that the whole question is not clear cut and each case needs to be decided on the individual facts. Also the Ilott case really was quite exceptional and I would suggest that the decision does not have the universal application that soem were hoping for. The Supreme Court judgement emphasised that the Law Commission need to revisit the law on this topic. Given a very crowded Parliamentary timetable because of Brexit even if the the LC did suggest changes they are not going to become law for years if at all.

Marktheshark · 21 March 2017 at 11:08AM

Charities do aggressively badger elderly making donations to change their wills and send out hard sell pressure canvassers to pressure elderly people.

Personally this practice should be banned by law.

securityguy · 21 March 2017 at 11:12AM

Marktheshark wrote: »

Charities do aggressively badger elderly making donations to change their wills and send out hard sell pressure canvassers to pressure elderly people..

There isn't the slightest suggestion of this in the Illot case.

unholyangel · 21 March 2017 at 2:30PM

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Sadly the quoted passage does not help much as it has been superceded by the Supreme Court judgement. The Suprme Court judgement suggest to me is that the whole question is not clear cut and each case needs to be decided on the individual facts. Also the Ilott case really was quite exceptional and I would suggest that the decision does not have the universal application that soem were hoping for. The Supreme Court judgement emphasised that the Law Commission need to revisit the law on this topic. Given a very crowded Parliamentary timetable because of Brexit even if the the LC did suggest changes they are not going to become law for years if at all.

What quoted passage? The ones quoting DJ Million in the original case Ilott v Mitson? While the supreme court judgement is obviously prevailing, the judgement itself basically restored the original judgement of DJ Million as the supreme court judgement was that he did not err in his application of the law. So I would hardly say it doesn't help much.

Yorkshireman99 · 21 March 2017 at 5:50PM

unholyangel wrote: »

What quoted passage? The ones quoting DJ Million in the original case Ilott v Mitson? While the supreme court judgement is obviously prevailing, the judgement itself basically restored the original judgement of DJ Million as the supreme court judgement was that he did not err in his application of the law. So I would hardly say it doesn't help much.

You gave a link which is in effect a quote. My point was that the Supreme court judgement is the one that sets the precendent albeit confirmed the previous ruling. As I have said repeatedly the SC judgement is the cruicial thing. It really gets knowhere trying to pick that judgement to bits.

Malthusian · 22 March 2017 at 12:40PM

Marktheshark wrote: »

Charities do aggressively badger elderly making donations to change their wills and send out hard sell pressure canvassers to pressure elderly people.

Personally this practice should be banned by law.

Mrs Jackson had decided to disinherit her daughter long before she was elderly and could be considered "vulnerable" to hard sell sales tactics. So if anyone did persuade her to alter her Will (as SG says there's no suggestion of this) they only enriched one animal charity at the expense of another. At the risk of adding to the weight of pointless speculation, I don't see any reason not to think that Mrs Jackson's decision to leave a six figure estate entirely to animal charities was not entirely her own impulse.

Supreme Court Ilott judgement.

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free