A landmark Supreme Court ruling has awarded charities the majority of an estate after it was disputed by an estranged daughter.
The Court overturned a previous appeal to award the daughter, Heather Ilott, a sum of £160,000 after she claimed that her mother had not made provisions for her in her will.
The mother, Melita Jackson, had left the lion’s share of her will to three animal charities, amounting to £486,000.
The charities, The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, appealed the decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeal judges “fell into error” when deciding to award the daughter with a six-figure sum.
The Judgement implies that independent children have less claim to an estate than the chosen beneficiaries of a will.
The Supreme Court judges reversed Ms Ilott’s payout to £50,000 – the sum originally awarded by a district judge in 2007.
“Charities depend heavily on testamentary bequests for their work, which is by definition of public benefit and in many cases will be for demonstrably humanitarian purposes,” they said in the judgement.
“More fundamentally, these charities were the chosen beneficiaries of the deceased. They did not have to justify a claim on the basis of need under the 1975 Act, as Mrs Ilott necessarily had to do.”
A spokesman for the charities said: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has given welcome reassurance that – save in limited and specific circumstances – the wishes recorded in a person’s will must be respected.”