Keep up to date with Salmons Solicitors using our news section for the latest information.
Heather Illot v The Blue Cross - March 2017
The case of Illot v The Blue Cross has been keenly watched by legal practitioners advising on the entitlement of family members cut from a will. Hitherto, it was thought that an adult
beneficiary of his or her own means could not successfully invoke the Inheritance Act 1975 in order to ask the court to review the adequacy of the will. The 1975 Act assists those for whom the will makes no adequate provision and is traditionally invoked by those financially dependent on the deceased at death.
In this case the mother and daughter had not spoken for years and the daughter was of very limited means but not reliant on her mother. The mother cut her out of the will and left her estate to charity.
The daughter had an income of £20,000 and lived in a Council house.
The case was heard by a District Judge who awarded her £50,000 for her living expenses to replace worn out furniture and take family holidays.
Both sides appealed, the daughter, for more, and the charity, for the order to be overturned and substituted with no award.
The case went through appeals to the High Court, Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court who restored the Order of the District Judge who had initially ordered the estate to provide £50,000 to the daughter.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court was as follows;
A) What is reasonable is a value judgment to be made by the judge who hears the evidence.
B) Awards should not be made to reward good behaviour and awards should not be withheld to punish estrangement
especially when estrangement can often involve both sides.
C) The charities did not need to justify their claims - they were the named beneficiaries of the deceased.
D) Ordinarily awards are limited to maintenance of recurring living costs; only spouses and civil partners should have an expectation of more.
E) Where a Claimant is in receipt of State Benefits, it is a relevant factor to consider the effect on those benefits of the making of an award.
F) The order of the original judge to hear the case should be overturned only if the judge made a mistake of principle or a mistake of law and he/she has a very wide ambit of discretion to apply the various factors set out in the 1975 Act.
Latest News Articles
Stephen Brookes, Assessor of the Personal Injury Panel of the Law Society, looks at the recent decision in Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Read More
The long running saga concerning the entitlement of an estranged adult child cut out of a deceased's parent's will is finally resolved, writes Donna Riley of Salmons Solicitors. Read More
The Government is still deluding itself in thinking that denial of access to justice will cause insurance premiums to fall. Read the full report here - Read More
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers calls for a complete ban on nuisance calls about accident claims
APIL have issued recently a press release to try and persuade the Government to put an outright ban on intimidating cold callers pestering members of the public to make accident claims for accidents which they have never had. Read More
The Government's plans to prevent irritating claims being brought against their friends in the insurance industry continue to attract criticism. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two cycling injury cases making the legal headlines recently Read More
Stephen Brookes looks at two personal injury cases on either side of the fence; in the former case the claimant won but in the latter case the claimant failed. Read More
If ever there was a minefield in the application of applicable rules it is in the area of discrimination law. Stephen Brookes reviews the recent case of Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ( 2015) Read More
A recent case on the duty of swimming pool lifeguards confirms 1999 guidance Read More
Since April 2015 the Court has had power to strike out a claim for personal injury compensation if a claimant has been fundamentally dishonest - but what does this mean? Read More
Supreme Court decision changes the meaning of an unlawful penalty charge in contract law - Beavis v Parking Eye reviewed Read More
Working time might now include travel to and from the first and the last job for employees who are based at home. Read More
Following the decision of Salmons Solicitors to withdraw from all legal aid work upon the grounds of unsustainable remuneration levels, there is increasing pressure for criminal defence legal practices. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the latest attempts by the Coalition Government to make the legal claims process unworkable. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two recent personal injury claims where the claimants both failed. Read More
There can be few more fun pursuits than taking your off roader into difficult and challenging off road terrain, but before you do so, a cautionary word about a recent change of insurance law, writes Stephen Brookes. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the recent case of Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton on the inclusion of overtime into holiday pay calculations. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the decision of the Supreme Court in Coventry and Lawrence (2014) Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two recent cases dealing with the question of when an employer can be liable for injuries inflicted by a member of the workforce on another person Read More
Farah Gilani reviews a January 2014 case involving a prosecution over an unguarded piece of machinery. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews a recent case involving an injury compensation claim brought by one friend against another arising out of the use of loaned leisure equipment. Read More
Nick Mason looks at the risk from not using a traditional high street law firm offering a quality managed service Read More