Tweet
http://swarb.co.uk/ilott-v-mitson-in...y-adult-child/
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/346.html
Ilott v Mitson – Inheritance Act claim by adult child
Ilott -v- Mitson and Others – CA – 31/03/2011
The claimant, the estranged adult daughter of the deceased had claimed under the 1975 Act. The judge made an order for payment of £50,000 by way of capitalisation of maintenance. The claimant appealed saying she should have received more, and the charities (beneficiaries under the will) said that no payment should have been made.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded, and the matter remitted for reconsideration on quantum. The value judgment of a trial judge, who has undertaken the section 3 exercise and has reached a judgment on the evidence should not be lightly disturbed unless the conclusion reached is “plainly wrong”. The district judge here had asked himself the correct question, and it had been wrong to find that he had erred in law. Arden LJ said: “The totemic phrase in section 2(1) of the 1975 Act is “reasonable financial provision”. This phrase has a constant meaning, but its application in any individual case must take account of the circumstances of the case and current social conditions and values. There were three notable value judgments by the District Judge in this case. In the first of these, the District Judge held in a passage already cited that the applicant was entitled to make her life with a partner of her choice and to have a family of her own. In the second of these, the District Judge held that it was reasonable for her to wish to remain at home for the time being rather than work (outside the home). In the third of these the District Judge held that families, such as those of the applicant and her husband, “were not all to be blamed for their lack of income which makes a claim for tax credits necessary and possible.” These were evaluations for the District Judge to make in the circumstances of this case. In my judgment the conclusions of the District Judge cannot be said to be plainly wrong.
Indeed, these three value judgments made by the District Judge demonstrate how under the 1975 Act the court must make value judgments in order to arrive at a decision as to whether the provision made by a testatrix constituted reasonable financial provision. I am not concerned that a judge should be called on to make such judgments. It is a reality in the twenty-first century that judges are called upon to make judgments of this kind in different cases and in different circumstances. They must do so with such assistance as they can find in existing decided cases. If (as often happens) there are no decided cases, they must decide questions involving value judgments within four corners of the statutory framework and with the benefit of their own awareness and experience of society and social issues, and their own considered view of how such matters ought fairly to be decided in the society in which we live. It is worthy of note that there was no other way that the District Judge could have made the three value judgments discussed in this paragraph. Judges are not unaccountable for value judgments. Those value judgments can be reviewed on appeal . .”
Sir Nicholas Wall P, Arden, Black LJJ
(Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 346)
Wills and Probate –
Statutes:
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 s. 2(1) s. 3
Cases Cited:
In Re Coventry (deceased) CA 3-1-1979 ([1980] Ch 461, [1979] 3 All ER 815)
H -v- Mitson and Others FD 1-12-2009 ([2010] 1 FLR 1613, Bailii, [2009] EWHC 3114 (Fam)) – Appeal from
Re Gregory (Deceased), Gregory -v- Goodenough CA 1970 ([1970] 1 WLR 1455)
In Re Jennings deceased, David Robert Derrick Harlow -v- National Westminster Bank Plc, Dorothy Fleming, Lorna Hobbs, Lorna Hobbs etc CA 13-12-1993 ([1994] Ch 286, [1994] 3 WLR 67, [1994] 3 All ER 27, Bailii, [1993] EWCA Civ 10)
Cameron -v- Treasury Solicitor 1996 ([1996] 2 FLR 716)
Snapes -v- Aram; Wade; Hancocks and Hancocks (Executors of the Estate of Dora May Hancocks Deceased); Thomas Leonard Hancocks; Charles Alex Hancocks etc; In re Hancocks (Deceased) CA 1-5-1998 (Gazette 20-May-98, Times 08-May-98, Gazette 03-Jun-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 764, [1998] 2 FLR 346)
In re Dennis (Deceased) 1981 ([1981] 2 All ER 140)
Myers -v- Myers & Others; In the estate of Geoffrey Holt Myers (deceased) FD 2004 ([2004] EWHC 1944 (Fam), [2008] WTLR 851)
Re Pearce (Deceased) CA 4-11-1998 (Gazette 04-Nov-98, [1998] 2 FLR 705)
Espinosa -v- Bourke CA 1999 ([1999] 1 FLR 747)
John Anthony Haigh Fielden, Kathryn Ann Graham (Executors of the Estate of John Derrick Cunliffe deceased) -v- Monika Theresia Gerda Cunliffe CA 6-12-2005 (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1508, [2006] Ch 361, (2005-06) 8 ITELR 855, [2006] 1 FLR 745, [2006] Fam Law 263, [2006] 2 All ER 115, [2005] 2 WLR 481, [2005] 3 FCR 593, [2006] WTLR 29)
Piglowska -v- Piglowski HL 24-6-1999 (Times 25-Jun-99, Gazette 07-Jul-99, Gazette 20-Oct-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] UKHL 27, [1999] 3 All ER 632, [1999] 1 WLR 1360, [1999] 2 FCR 481, [1999] 2 FLR 763, [1999] Fam Law 617)
lawindexpro
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/346.html
Ilott v Mitson – Inheritance Act claim by adult child
Ilott -v- Mitson and Others – CA – 31/03/2011
The claimant, the estranged adult daughter of the deceased had claimed under the 1975 Act. The judge made an order for payment of £50,000 by way of capitalisation of maintenance. The claimant appealed saying she should have received more, and the charities (beneficiaries under the will) said that no payment should have been made.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded, and the matter remitted for reconsideration on quantum. The value judgment of a trial judge, who has undertaken the section 3 exercise and has reached a judgment on the evidence should not be lightly disturbed unless the conclusion reached is “plainly wrong”. The district judge here had asked himself the correct question, and it had been wrong to find that he had erred in law. Arden LJ said: “The totemic phrase in section 2(1) of the 1975 Act is “reasonable financial provision”. This phrase has a constant meaning, but its application in any individual case must take account of the circumstances of the case and current social conditions and values. There were three notable value judgments by the District Judge in this case. In the first of these, the District Judge held in a passage already cited that the applicant was entitled to make her life with a partner of her choice and to have a family of her own. In the second of these, the District Judge held that it was reasonable for her to wish to remain at home for the time being rather than work (outside the home). In the third of these the District Judge held that families, such as those of the applicant and her husband, “were not all to be blamed for their lack of income which makes a claim for tax credits necessary and possible.” These were evaluations for the District Judge to make in the circumstances of this case. In my judgment the conclusions of the District Judge cannot be said to be plainly wrong.
Indeed, these three value judgments made by the District Judge demonstrate how under the 1975 Act the court must make value judgments in order to arrive at a decision as to whether the provision made by a testatrix constituted reasonable financial provision. I am not concerned that a judge should be called on to make such judgments. It is a reality in the twenty-first century that judges are called upon to make judgments of this kind in different cases and in different circumstances. They must do so with such assistance as they can find in existing decided cases. If (as often happens) there are no decided cases, they must decide questions involving value judgments within four corners of the statutory framework and with the benefit of their own awareness and experience of society and social issues, and their own considered view of how such matters ought fairly to be decided in the society in which we live. It is worthy of note that there was no other way that the District Judge could have made the three value judgments discussed in this paragraph. Judges are not unaccountable for value judgments. Those value judgments can be reviewed on appeal . .”
Sir Nicholas Wall P, Arden, Black LJJ
(Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 346)
Wills and Probate –
Statutes:
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 s. 2(1) s. 3
Cases Cited:
In Re Coventry (deceased) CA 3-1-1979 ([1980] Ch 461, [1979] 3 All ER 815)
H -v- Mitson and Others FD 1-12-2009 ([2010] 1 FLR 1613, Bailii, [2009] EWHC 3114 (Fam)) – Appeal from
Re Gregory (Deceased), Gregory -v- Goodenough CA 1970 ([1970] 1 WLR 1455)
In Re Jennings deceased, David Robert Derrick Harlow -v- National Westminster Bank Plc, Dorothy Fleming, Lorna Hobbs, Lorna Hobbs etc CA 13-12-1993 ([1994] Ch 286, [1994] 3 WLR 67, [1994] 3 All ER 27, Bailii, [1993] EWCA Civ 10)
Cameron -v- Treasury Solicitor 1996 ([1996] 2 FLR 716)
Snapes -v- Aram; Wade; Hancocks and Hancocks (Executors of the Estate of Dora May Hancocks Deceased); Thomas Leonard Hancocks; Charles Alex Hancocks etc; In re Hancocks (Deceased) CA 1-5-1998 (Gazette 20-May-98, Times 08-May-98, Gazette 03-Jun-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 764, [1998] 2 FLR 346)
In re Dennis (Deceased) 1981 ([1981] 2 All ER 140)
Myers -v- Myers & Others; In the estate of Geoffrey Holt Myers (deceased) FD 2004 ([2004] EWHC 1944 (Fam), [2008] WTLR 851)
Re Pearce (Deceased) CA 4-11-1998 (Gazette 04-Nov-98, [1998] 2 FLR 705)
Espinosa -v- Bourke CA 1999 ([1999] 1 FLR 747)
John Anthony Haigh Fielden, Kathryn Ann Graham (Executors of the Estate of John Derrick Cunliffe deceased) -v- Monika Theresia Gerda Cunliffe CA 6-12-2005 (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1508, [2006] Ch 361, (2005-06) 8 ITELR 855, [2006] 1 FLR 745, [2006] Fam Law 263, [2006] 2 All ER 115, [2005] 2 WLR 481, [2005] 3 FCR 593, [2006] WTLR 29)
Piglowska -v- Piglowski HL 24-6-1999 (Times 25-Jun-99, Gazette 07-Jul-99, Gazette 20-Oct-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] UKHL 27, [1999] 3 All ER 632, [1999] 1 WLR 1360, [1999] 2 FCR 481, [1999] 2 FLR 763, [1999] Fam Law 617)
lawindexpro
