News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Daughter wins RSPCA will fight

Christine Gill smiling after today's hearing Christine Gill smiling after today's hearing

CHRISTINE Gill who contested her parents' will after they left their £2m estate to the RSPCA has won her legal challenge.

Speaking today in Leeds, she said: "I always believed from what my mother said to me that she wanted to leave me the farm. That is what the court has decided today.

"I loved my parents and dedicated many years to caring for them and maintaining the family farm.

"Sadly the RSPCA refused to believe me and hear my side of the story before we went to court.

"These can be expensive cases for working people like me."

The RSPCA has said it is looking to appeal the ruling.

Mark Keenan, partner at Mishcon de Reya, Christine’s solicitors added: “We backed Christine because we believed she had suffered an injustice.

"Sharing some of the risk and securing costs insurance for her were tangible ways of doing so.”

The 58-year-old from Potto, near Northallerton, North Yorkshire, launched her legal battle in July last year to challenge the will, which she claimed her father coerced her mother into making.

After her mother's death in 2006, Dr Gill discovered her parents, John and Joyce Gill, had made wills leaving their 287-acre farm to each other and then to the animal charity when both died.

During High Court hearings in Leeds, Judge James Allen QC heard how Dr Gill - an only child - was given repeated assurances that she would inherit Potto Carr Farm when her parents died.

The university lecturer told the court she had devoted most of her spare time over a period of more than 30 years to voluntarily helping out at the farm.

When Mr Gill died in 1999, aged 82, Dr Gill was left to look after her mother and run the farm, the court heard.

It was only when her mother died in 2006, also aged 82, that Dr Gill saw the will, which left everything to the RSPCA.

The court heard Mrs Gill suffered from agoraphobia with panic disorder, went everywhere with her husband, who was said to be stubborn and domineering, and was dependent on him to make decisions for her.

Psychiatrists said it was likely Mrs Gill would have conformed with the wishes of her husband when they made their wills in 1993 but her anxiety and her dependence on Mr Gill would have made it very difficult for her to take in the proceedings or disagree with what he wanted to do.

But experts disagreed about Mrs Gill's mental state, with one telling the court she was an eccentric woman but did not have a formal psychiatric disorder.

A spokesman for the RSPCA said afterwards: “We are very surprised and of course disappointed by this judgment, and we are concerned at any implications this could have for charities and other groups.

“Throughout this, the RSPCA has been in an extremely difficult position. The Will left by Dr Gill’s parents was very clear - in one sentence they left their entire estate to the RSPCA, and in the next they said their daughter should receive nothing.

“In that situation the RSPCA cannot just walk away, in fact we are legally obliged to seek the funds under charitable law. That said, we are a compassionate organisation, and that’s why we’ve tried to settle this matter amicably before it even came to court. Unfortunately, our offers were rejected.

“Today’s ruling shows the RSPCA has acted in good faith, and we are glad the judge recognised that the late Mrs Gill understood the Will and knew what she was doing when she made it.

"What this case does show is how important it is when making a Will that people discuss their intentions with their family and beneficiaries, otherwise the impact can be very upsetting."

Comments(4)

Super steve says...
2:00pm Fri 9 Oct 09

Good for her, its about time common sense was applied to situations like this. The RSPCA should be ashamed of the way it has behaved in this case being willing to throw a woman out of her home just so they can grab some more money.
I for one will no longer donate to the RSPCA and have redirected my donation to the Dogs trust.

grandmab says...
2:21pm Fri 9 Oct 09

Sad that she would have had no chance if the law firm had not backed her. Charities these days are big business and I have stopped donating to the RSPCA and others because of their money grabbing ways. They spend millions on advertising and corporate expenses. I think they should lose the charitable status if they operate as a business. If they had to pay corporate taxes the country would be less poor. Now a days any one can start a charity and name themselves as administrator to provide them with an income. The law needs to change. I'm glad the high court found in Dr. Gill's favour.

Wootleage says...
2:41pm Fri 9 Oct 09

The mother had 7 years to change her Will if she wanted to leave it to her daughter. the fact that she didn't other to change it speak volumes. The RSPCA was given this money and were rejected when they offered out of court settlements.

The daughter would not lose her home - she and her husband have bought their own ajoining land.

If I left my Will to a charity I would expect my children to accept that I believed they could earn their own living and I would have a clause where if they challenged the Will they were automatically exempt from receiving any inheritance.

Shame on her for being so grasping and casting such aspersions on her fathers character.

Dean M says...
6:54pm Fri 9 Oct 09

I have to say that I'm inclined to go with Wootleage's view. Consider two comments from the article:
1. From Mrs Gill: 'Sadly the RSPCA refused to believe me and hear my side of the story before we went to court'. No mention of any offer to the RSPCA.
2. From the RSPCA: 'That said, we are a compassionate organisation, and that’s why we’ve tried to settle this matter amicably before it even came to court. Unfortunately, our offers were rejected.'
So it appears from the article that the RSPCA were prepared to negotiate but Mrs Gill was not.
Her father died in 1999 but her mother not until 2006 - so she had plenty of time to change it. If her parents decided not to leave her anything - and it is reported that the will was very specific in stating this - then their wishes should be respected, as harsh as it may sound. It's unacceptable for unelected, unaccountable judges to decide our will's are wrong and change them based on the unhappiness of someone being excluded, family or otherwise.
I hope the RSPCA do appeal - it's another interesting case.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree