News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


RSPCA facing £1m legal costs over Northallerton contested will

LEGAL VICTORY: Dr Christine Gill LEGAL VICTORY: Dr Christine Gill

Lecturer Christine Gill yesterday won the latest round of her legal wrangle with the RSPCA over her parents’ farm, but the end is not yet in sight. Joe Willis reports.

THE RSPCA is facing a seven figure legal bill after losing a court battle over a farm left to the charity in a will.

Judge James Allen yesterday ordered the animal charity to pay the majority of the £1.3m legal fees incurred in its fight with university lecturer Christine Gill.

Dr Gill last night spoke of her relief saying that the judgement in the three-year row “set the record straight”.

The mother-of-one took the charity to court after discovering it had been left £2m Potto Carr Farm, near Northallerton, North Yorkshire, in the will of her mother, Joyce Gill.

She said in court that her mother suffered from mental illness and had been “coerced”

into signing the document by her domineering husband, Dr Gill’s father, John Arthur Gill.

She won the case and was yesterday celebrating again after the High Court, sitting in Leeds, ruled that most of her costs of about £900,000 would be paid by the RSPCA.

The charity must also pay the majority of its own costs – estimated to be about £400,000.

The judge ruled that most of the financial burden should fall on the RSPCA after criticising the charity for not agreeing to settle with Dr Gill before the case came to court.

He said the animal charity would have come away with more had it settled.

After yesterday’s hearing, Dr Gill said: “After last October’s judgement, the RSPCA attempted to justify its stance by saying it was obliged under charity law to defend the claim to trial – that it was a compassionate organisation and that I was the barrier to settlement. This decision sets the record straight.”

Her solicitor, Mark Keenan, from Mishcon de Reya, said: “The RSPCA adopted an entrenched position.

“If they had taken the time to meet Christine and her family, the matter need not have gone to court.”

Legal arguments over the details of the costs order continued yesterday, with the judge due to make his final judgement next week.

The RSPCA has 21 days to appeal against the original decision to overturn the will.

The charity, which the judgement stated would be able to recover some of its costs from the estate, said it had acted in accordance with the wishes of Mrs Gill.

In a statement, a spokeswoman said: “At this stage, no specific sums have been calculated, so we don’t yet know what either bill will be. It is therefore too early for us to comment on the costs.

“However, we are happy that the judge has ordered that some of our costs are to come out of the estate and that we are not paying the whole of Dr Gill’s legal costs.”

Comments(9)

cj-dog says...
11:43pm Fri 5 Feb 10

Unfortunately in this country charities have become an industry which feel that they answer to no-one and feel they cannot be challenged.
It seems odd that their original costs were substantially less than those of Dr. Gill.
Perhaps they expected to bully her out of her inheritance by sheer financial force.
I hope a message goes out that charities should be grateful for what they get and not expect what they think they should get.

Super steve says...
1:42pm Sat 6 Feb 10

The bloody RSPCA should have negotiated with the lady instead of taking its bullyboy attitude. I like many other former RSPCa supporters stopped donating and cancelled our memberships over the appauling way the charity was doing things, such as putting down a perfectly healthy goat at Stokesley during the F&M outbreak, Just incase it got F&M.

billysaid says...
2:19pm Sat 6 Feb 10

well done christine,you beat the greedy so called charity. it would have only gone into the pockets of the directors anyway. that is a fact.

grandmab says...
2:48pm Sat 6 Feb 10

I have no use for charities who use charitable funds to advertise, pay high priced executives and law firms. That makes them a business in my mind. As such they should pay license fees and business tax. Their greed in this case is disgusting. having said that, the laws on legal competency need to be changed in this country to protect people like ms. Gill's mother who was vulnerable. We are so reluctant to take away rights that elderly, ill and mentally challenged people are taken advantage of every day. Lawyers should be educated on mental illness and dementia to prevent wills like this from being signed. Who's lawyer drew up the will?

Barbara49 says...
2:59pm Sat 6 Feb 10

I belong to the Hillside animal sanctuary in Norfolk and am not happy with the conduct of the RSPCA in many respects, see the website "Hillside animal sanctuary".
Also this is one of many negative articles concerning the RSPCA.
http://rspcathetruth
.blogspot.com/

CassieBess says...
12:19pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Shame on greedy RSPCA - they don't deserve a penny! Obliged by charity law to pursue? They need to remember that they are a charity .. and should do no harm ...charity exists for humans .... animals deserve to be looked after and treat well... but humans to not deserved to be persecuted by this odious organisation!

Barbara49 says...
12:39pm Sun 7 Feb 10

http://www.hillside.
org.uk/index.htm

See multiple failings of the RSPCA on this website. Heartless and a money making business.

Ashdeep says...
8:37am Mon 8 Feb 10

RSCPC can win the case by going for an appeal. I am sure she knew about the will before her mother's death, but she thought it was not a right time to approach a solicitor as her mom would tell the truth in the court. I feel this lady was waiting for her mother to die, so that she could go to court and try to get her parent's property. Even if she was not aware of the will until the death of her mother then how can she possibly know that her mother was "coerced”??? Say even if her mother was coerced, don't you think she would have informed about this to her daughter after the father's death??? Was 7 years not sufficient for the mother to inform the same to her daughter and change the will??? The whole point here is Christine, basically took the help of a psychiatrist and tried to prove that she is mentally disturbed. Usually the week parties of the case take mental disturbance as a strong point to get their way. That's exactly what she did and got her way in the court.
I am sure she was not a good daughter to her parents, so they decided to donate their land to RSPCA. No parents can do this to their own child unless and until a child herself has done something to hurt their parents. But this selfish lady could not see £2m go out of her hands.
However this case should not be judged on the basis of who is greedy and who is not..It is more to do with the legal rights, which the RSPCA has, as per the will.
On the other hand if we have to judge who is greedy, then I think even the lady is greedy. If she was not, then she would have just settle down with £6,50,000. Talking on the economically front, this lady will accumulate the money and make her son very rich without any hardwork. The popular statement "Rich becomes more richer and poor becomes more poorer" will prove to be true.
If RSPCA has this property, it would be used for a very good cause. Also the money would have been distributed among people, as it would have opened up more jobs in their organisation.

Barbara49 says...
2:09pm Mon 8 Feb 10

The daughter worked on her parents farm for years, giving up her job to help look after them.
The RSPCA is simply a business and has proved that it is not a compassionate charity many times.
See the Hillside animal sanctuary website.

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