and not provide her with enough funds to
purchase the housing association property she
was currently residing in. The Court of Appeal
awarded her £143,000 to enable her to buy
her home along with an additional £20,000 for
income.
The decision was appealed to the Supreme
Court who held that as Mrs Ilott had not been
financially dependant on her mother, she did not
require an income and that any provision was
reasonable given the circumstances. Her original
award of £50,000 was therefore reinstated.
Looking at more recent cases which have been
in the public eye is a recent ruling by the High
Court which determined that a claim brought by
3 sons for a share of their mother’s £1 million
family home was unsuccessful. Mrs Rea died
in July 2016 at the age of 86 and in her final
Will which she made in 2015, she left her South
London home, which was her main asset and
worth roughly £1 million, to her daughter Rita.
She had left a note with her Will which stated
that her sons did not help with her care in
comparison to her daughter who had been her
sole carer for many years and therefore if any
of the sons challenged her Will, she wanted any
claim from them to be defended on the basis
she did not believe they should have a share in
her estate.
It was found that her 2015 Will replaced an
earlier Will in 1986 which had left her entire
estate to be shared equally between her 4
children. The sons who were written out of the
mother’s Will, brought a claim on the basis that
their sister had “poisoned” their mums mind by
claiming the sons had abandoned their mother
so that she would solely inherit the family home.
They relied on the grounds of undue influence
and made an application to strike out the 2015
Will and reinstate the earlier Will made by their
mother in 1986.
More recently, this month, there is yet another
case in the public eye where a 77 year old has
brought a claim against his niece, Lady Natalie
Wackett, for half a share of his father’s £2.4
million fortune on the basis that he was written
out of the Will for being an “unwanted baby.”
He was born during World War 2 while his
father was serving in the RAF and at the time
his parents were unmarried. It was for this
reason that his parents grew to resent him and
favoured his siblings instead.
Mr Johnston, the claimant, said his parents
always resented him and his mother often told
him that she “would have been a Hollywood
star if it wasn’t for you” as she had always
dreamed of being on screen. It was relevant
however that his father had promised that the
income generated by the family business would
“provide me with an income for life.”
As he grew older, the relationship continued to
be strained between Mr Johnston and his father
which led to his father cutting him out of the
family inheritance and instead leaving all his
inheritance to his granddaughter.
Mr Johnston argued that he is hard up and
works as a bus driver to keep afloat. This is
in comparison to his niece who was given her
grandparents entire fortune and has the family
business.
Lady Wackett in comparison argues that he was
not an “unwanted war baby” and was loved by
his family. Her case is that his gambling habit
along with cheating the family business is what
drove the family apart. In addition, he had not
looked after his parents as they grew older, did
not reconcile with them or even attend their
funerals.
The case continues.
It was ruled that Mrs Rea was very strong
minded and at the time she made her revised
Will, it was clear she knew what she was doing.
Therefore, her mind had not been influenced
and she made the decision to write her sons
out of her Will on her own accord. For further
information please see our earlier article.
the society of will writers
13