판결 이유
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 does not override testamentary freedom but allows the court to make reasonable financial provision for eligible applicants. The court must balance the testator's wishes, the applicant's needs, and the claims of other beneficiaries. An adult child's claim is limited to maintenance.
사실관계
Melita Jackson died in 2004 leaving an estate of £486,000 entirely to animal charities, deliberately excluding her estranged daughter Heather Ilott. Ilott, who had been estranged from her mother for 26 years, applied under the Inheritance Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision. She was living on state benefits with her husband and five children.
판결 요약
The Supreme Court restored the original first instance award of £50,000 (reduced from the Court of Appeal's £143,000). The Court emphasised that testamentary freedom is an important principle and that an adult child's claim is limited to what is reasonable for maintenance, not an outright share of the estate. The testator's wishes and reasons for exclusion are relevant but not determinative.
주요 인용문
"The 1975 Act does, of course, represent a qualification on the right of a testator to dispose of his estate as he wishes... but it does not abrogate that right. The purpose of the Act is to provide a safety net, and not to provide the applicant with a share of the estate."
— Lord Hughes
후속 처리
Leading Supreme Court authority on the Inheritance Act 1975. Confirmed the limited nature of adult children's claims and the importance of testamentary freedom.