News

Watch out for negative PR over RSPCA case, lawyers warn

Finance | Vibeka Mair | 13 Oct 2009

Charities must be mindful of negative PR in the wake of the RSPCA legacy case, according to charity law firm Bates Wells and Braithwaite.

Last week, the RSPCA lost a High Court battle to keep a legacy worth around £2m which was successfully contested by the will-maker's daughter, Dr Christine Gill.

Dr Gill told the court she got repeated assurances from her parents that she would inherit the home when they died, however when her mother passed away in 2007 she found she would receive nothing.

The High Court agreed that Gill’s father had forced her mother into leaving their home Carr Farm in North Yorkshire to the RSPCA before his death in 1999 and found in favour of Gill. The court also upheld Dr Gil’s claim in proprietary estoppel – that she had altered her life and cared for her mother in the expectation that she would inherit the farm.

The RSPCA plans to appeal against the judgment.

Laura Soley, joint head of BWB’s charity legacies and disputes team told Charity News Alert that charities were in a difficult position when dealing with legacy disputes and had to be careful of negative backlash .

“Charities have a duty to protect the charity’s resources and so they must act to protect their legacies, but they will also be mindful of potentially negative PR.

“Cases like this show how legacy disputes can cause negative PR for charities. I have read some of the blogs on this case and some people suggest that, as a result of this case, they will stop giving to the RSPCA. For some charities, legacies make up a significant part of their annual revenue, so this is a serious issue.”

Soley also warned of a possible increase in challenges to legacies: “This case does show that there may be an increase in the number of people willing to litigate over wills.”

An RPSCA spokesman also said that the judgment could have implications for charities and other groups in response to the ruling and advised: "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."

Paul Hewitt, member and partner of the charity legacy and contentious trust & succession group at Withers, agreed but said charities shouldn’t get carried away.

“Every case is different and this one is unusual. It is probably true to say that the press coverage will encourage people to bring claims. But it will not open the floodgates – it will just heighten awareness in the general public that wills can be challenged. We shouldn’t get carried away – the majority of wills are upheld.”

He continued: “Charities do have a public education role in encouraging the public to make a will. It is the responsibility of solicitors to work with their clients to make sure wills give effect to their clients’ wishes and they keep appropriate records. Charities can certainly encourage good practice to help avoid unnecessary litigation but it is not their role to act as a regulator.”

Tweet

Directory: Bates Wells & Braithwaite | Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
Who's Who: Vibeka Mair