Ilott v Mitson & Ors

In an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the assessment has two stages: whether the disposition makes reasonable financial provision and, if not, what provision should be made. The same statutory factors apply at both stages, but they perform different functions. A claimant’s lack of expectation of receiving an inheritance may be relevant to the amount of an award, even if it does not make the absence of provision reasonable at the gateway stage. The court must conduct a broad balancing exercise and is not required to improve a claimant’s financial circumstances or meet a housing need. An appellate court should interfere only for legal error, serious procedural irregularity, or a conclusion outside the range of reasonable disagreement.

Heather Ilott appealed against a District Judge’s award of £50,000 from the estate of her estranged mother under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The deceased had left her estate to three charities. The District Judge held that the will failed to make reasonable provision for the claimant, who lived in modest circumstances and depended substantially on state benefits, but limited the award because she had no expectation of receiving anything from the estate.

The charities cross-appealed the gateway finding and the quantum. The High Court appeal on the gateway issue was allowed, but the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant’s further appeal and remitted the outstanding quantum appeal. The central issue was whether the District Judge had erred in law or evaluation in limiting the award to £50,000.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had not been shown to be wrong in awarding £50,000.
2. The criteria in section 3 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 apply both to the gateway question and to the assessment of quantum, but the court performs a different exercise at each stage. The absence of any expectation of inheritance did not prevent a finding that the will made unreasonable provision. It was nevertheless relevant to quantum, falling within the matters concerning obligations and responsibilities and any other relevant matter.
3. The statutory assessment is a balancing exercise. The fact that the claimant and her family had lived in straitened circumstances for many years did not require an award which improved their circumstances. Nor did the absence of any benefit from an award unless the claimant was rehoused require the court to fund the purchase of her home.
4. The District Judge was entitled to adopt a broad-brush approach. The evidence did not provide a reliable basis for calculating the effect of capital on state benefits, future maintenance, housing, or pension provision. The claimant’s proposed figures were materially disconnected from the size of the estate and her actual circumstances.
5. An appellate court may interfere with an evaluative or discretionary decision only where it is legally wrong, outside the range of reasonable disagreement, or affected by a serious procedural or other irregularity rendering it unjust. Those grounds were not established.

• High Court (Family Division): the present appeal against the quantum award was dismissed.
• Court of Appeal: allowed the claimant’s appeal against the earlier High Court decision and remitted the outstanding quantum appeal. The judgment gives no citation for that decision.
• High Court: the charities’ appeal against the gateway finding had previously been allowed by Eleanor King J. The judgment gives no citation for that decision.