News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


‘My mother loved me and I loved her’

HOME AT LAST: Christine Gill with her son, Christopher Baczkowski, at Potto Carr Farm. HOME AT LAST: Christine Gill with her son, Christopher Baczkowski, at Potto Carr Farm.

University lecturer Christine Gill speaks to Joe Willis about her battle to reclaim the £2m family farm left to the RSPCA by her mother.

LIKE many people across Britain, Christine Gill spent Tuesday evening battling through the snow to get home.

For her, though, the journey had extra significance. Earlier that day, the country’s most senior civil judge had ruled that she could keep the 287-acre family farm at Potto, near Northallerton, which she had worked on since she was a girl.

The Court of Appeal upheld an earlier High Court decision which ruled that the will signed by her mother, Joyce, leaving the farm and £300,000 to the RSPCA was invalid.

The judgement brought to an end a bitter four-year struggle with the charity.

It began in 2006 when her mother died. When Dr Gill spoke to her mother’s solicitor, she was told that the charity was the main beneficiary – despite her parents’ repeated assurances during their lives that she would get the farm.

The court heard how Dr Gill’s mother suffered from agoraphobia and was “coerced”

into signing the will by her “domineering” husband, John.

The reasons why Mr Gill signed everything to the charity, which he openly disliked, will never be known.

Speaking to The Northern Echo yesterday, Dr Gill, 60, who lectures at the University of Leeds, said the courts had realised it was not her mother’s wish to leave the farm to the charity.

“My mother loved me and I loved her,” she said.

“There’s no way she would have wanted this to happen.

She would have been appalled if she knew what we had been through the past four years.

“She wanted myself and (my son) Christopher to carry on with the farm.”

Dr Gill said she could not understand the RSPCA’s decision to continue fighting in court.

She said: “I have no axe to grind with the RSPCA. There’s a shelter at Great Ayton that does a great job, but that’s a million miles away from the executives who pushed this through the courts.”

The lecturer said she had repeatedly tried to settle out of court.

“I was pleading with them but it fell on deaf ears. Nobody wanted to hear.”

Despite the criticism of the charity, Dr Gill remains philosophical about the legal battle and now just wants to get on with running the farm.

“I guess it’s a case of all’s well that ends well,” she said.

And although there may still be a battle over costs to be fought, it appears it is the end of the argument.

In a statement issued yesterday, the charity said: “Although we are disappointed with this outcome, it strengthens our resolve to continue our important work preventing cruelty and suffering to animals.”

Comments(15)

kristal27 says...
12:53pm Thu 2 Dec 10

like I said in a previous post - the mother had seven years after the 'domineering husband' died to change her will - if she was agrophobic any solictor worth his fee would come do a home visit for such a purpose to make another one making her daughter the main beneficiary -maybe leaving the farm to her and the cash to the RSPCA -major smell of fish here -the greedy female dog ( I add this cos my description of this nasty piece of work was 'bleeped out' LOL!

perrow says...
5:29pm Thu 2 Dec 10

thank god for justice

kristal27 says...
6:21pm Thu 2 Dec 10

perrow wrote:
thank god for justice
so perrow - if your mum or dad left their house to you in their will and your older sister contested the will because she said your parents always said she would get it ,and your sister won the case -would that be justice?

lovemydog says...
7:43pm Thu 2 Dec 10

I think we should be careful not to critisise and jump to conclusions without knowing the details of the case.
The judges however did have all the facts before them and after carefully considering them set the will aside. There must have been very good reasons for this and that's what the justice system is there for.
Hats off to Christine Gill for having the courage to take the rspca on. She might not be poor but she certainly won't have had the money and resources the rspca have and a lot more to lose.
Its a shame the rspca didn't settle the case when she offered as then they both would have gained.

animalsrbetterthanpeople says...
4:53pm Fri 3 Dec 10

Has anyone wonderd how an out of work lecturer from the north of England could afford to employ one of the most prestigious law firms in the country to defend her, Mischon de Reya, the firm that defended the Princess of Wales in her divorce. Do i smell something fishy? There was something suspect about this case right from the start, there are judges who hate the RSPCA becasue they are of the hunting fraternity and this case was about damaging the RSPCA and thefore animal welfare. I have read the court evidence and transcripts and this was a travesty of justice. This woman has cost an animal charity millions of pounds in defending WHAT WAS RIGHTFULLY AND LEGALLY THEIRS because of her greed. I only hope when she leaves the farm to some relative in her will someone else will contest it. If this is British justice where a legal document signed and witnessed which is the whole point of doing that - to make sure that wills are NOT written under duress, can be overturned by a bunch of old men in bad wigs because of their personal preferences then what is the point of a legal document and a law. Britsh Justice is corrupt.

queenie1 says...
9:50am Sat 4 Dec 10

Some of the posts above are very harsh, Christine Gill worked on her parents farm for 30 years, sacrificing her own career to do so, and, blood being thicker than water, I'm thrilled that she won her case. She showed tremendous courage in taking on the RSPCA, who have morphed into an overbearing, zelous, quasi police force, hell bent on prosecution at all costs. And just for the record, it did NOT cost the RSPCA 1.3 million, that cost came out of public donations. Money intended to help animals, not make the RSPCA even richer!

potnoodle says...
10:14am Sat 4 Dec 10

Ridiculous. What's the point of making a will if a Judge disregards their wishes. Parents do not have to leave their property to their children, unless they want to. Children should not expect to inherit anything, they should work hard and make their own money. The RSPCA should appeal, and if they lose, Christine and family, should be forced to return the farm to RSPCA upon their death.

kristal27 says...
11:18am Sat 4 Dec 10

@ queenie 1 I'd be blinking well thrilled if someone handed me a farm worth 2 million after it was given to someone else in a will......some people farm for years on their parents farm then find the farm has been given to an older brother or split so many times it has to be sold to pay everyone off -thats life...

Joseph Piccioni says...
12:28pm Sat 4 Dec 10

There is an unhappy legal dimension to the outcome of this case. Given the late Mr Gill predeceased his wife by seven years and that during such time she could have changed her Will away from the RSPCA, legal precedent will make it likely no testator can be sure that a Will is enacted as written if they have living relatives.

The question now arises whether the fundamental freedom to dispose of personal property has been undermined. Surely wrongful in itself.

Also, the outcome threatens legacies to all charities concerned with children, poverty, medical, cultural, environmental, as well as animal welfare, because whenever a close living relative exists that person's claim will be favoured with or without firmly ground evidence of entitlement.

My view is founded on reading the original High Court judgement.

stevegg says...
4:02pm Sat 4 Dec 10

I just wonder what the tens of thousands of people think of this fiasco who donate monthly sums to the RSPCA charity. In effect they are paying the legal bills for this court case while this woman walks away with a fortune, Im sure thats not what they are paying money for. Two points - Is a persons will now to be contsested everytime money is left to a charity instead of a family member & Mrs Gill,s mother had 7 years following the death of her husband in which to change the will but she didnt, does this not say something??

queenie1 says...
7:12pm Sat 4 Dec 10

Kristal, that wasn't the situation in this case, so it doesn't apply.
The RSPCA are the richest animal charity in Britain, and certainly the most grasping. It's all about money and PR.
Tim Wass stands on TV with a cute puppy and bangs on about the Biggest Rescue Ever as though some awful catastophe has happened. You know what? They haven't rescued an animal or taken in a stray for years unless there is a prosecution in it.
Quasi police with too much political clout. I'm glad they lost, they deserved to.!

Safewings says...
9:49am Sun 5 Dec 10

Queenie1,
You are spot on and obviously someone with a sound animal welfare background. I say this because the majority of animal welfare orientated people know only too well what the rspca has sadly become. They have turned their back on animal welfare and chosen the path of becoming a politically charged money motivated business that uses innocent peoples` donations for purposes far removed than what the rspca was once founded on, namely caring for animals. They take in at head office in excess of £110m a year yet their satelite animal rescues with the rspca logo struggle to the point of closing down or making staff redundant. How can this be seen as animal friendly ?.
The rspca have become too powerful and accountable to no one and the World has witnessed what happens when fanatical dictators take control !.
Time for change and time for the Government to do their job instead of letting the charity sector run and pick up the bill........

potnoodle says...
10:10am Sun 5 Dec 10

Safewings wrote:
Queenie1, You are spot on and obviously someone with a sound animal welfare background. I say this because the majority of animal welfare orientated people know only too well what the rspca has sadly become. They have turned their back on animal welfare and chosen the path of becoming a politically charged money motivated business that uses innocent peoples` donations for purposes far removed than what the rspca was once founded on, namely caring for animals. They take in at head office in excess of £110m a year yet their satelite animal rescues with the rspca logo struggle to the point of closing down or making staff redundant. How can this be seen as animal friendly ?. The rspca have become too powerful and accountable to no one and the World has witnessed what happens when fanatical dictators take control !. Time for change and time for the Government to do their job instead of letting the charity sector run and pick up the bill........
What total and utter rubbish.

The RSPCA rescues and rehomes thousands of animals every year and many of the volunteers work round the clock helping animals. The RSPCA is also the first port of call to report animal abusers.

The local RSPCA Branches are separately run charities and many DO receive funding and grants from RSPCA HQ.

Safewings needs to get his or her facts correct in future before spouting out rubbish. Is Safewings related to A Casaca I wonder?

kristal27 says...
2:12pm Sun 5 Dec 10

this is not a slagging match on the merits of the RSPCA - I have had personal experience in dealing with the m and they are less than useless -its irrelevant WHO the money was left to - the point is a will was contested and won on what looks like very dodgy grounds and has set a precedent. if the money had been left to the air ambulance or a childrens charity, would anyone who supports Dr. Gill change their minds?

potnoodle says...
11:26am Mon 6 Dec 10

kristal27 wrote:
this is not a slagging match on the merits of the RSPCA - I have had personal experience in dealing with the m and they are less than useless -its irrelevant WHO the money was left to - the point is a will was contested and won on what looks like very dodgy grounds and has set a precedent. if the money had been left to the air ambulance or a childrens charity, would anyone who supports Dr. Gill change their minds?
The will was very clear. Nothing to the daughter but everything to the RSPCA.

There is nothing dodgy about it.

How could Dr Gill afford to instruct very expensive Lawyers in London? Is it because the same Lawyers are in favour of hunting?

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