RSPCA warns on legacy appeal case 5

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 9 Mar 2010

The RSPCA and three other large charities have issued a statement warning of huge implications for the sector if the RSPCA loses its forthcoming appeal against the High Court ruling that cost it a £2m legacy.

Five months ago, university lecturer Dr Christine Gill convinced the High Court that her father had coerced her mother into leaving their £2m farm to the RSPCA and successfully overturned the will, leaving the RSPCA with nothing.

The charity said it would appeal, but then last month it learned that it was likely to be saddled with a legal bill of around £1m for contesting the initial case. The RSPCA has repeatedly said that it was obliged under charity law to stake a claim for the legacy.

The charity said the trustees had decided to appeal because Mrs Gill’s wishes, as expressed in her will, ought to be granted. They pointed out that Mrs Gill had seven years after her husband’s death in which to make a new will, if she felt her existing will did not represent her wishes.

Now the RSPCA has issued a statement regarding the case, jointly with the Charities Aid Foundation, Great Ormond Street Hospital and Guide Dogs for the Blind. The statement said: “This case has been troubling for many charities, and we are very concerned at its possible implications for the charity sector.

“It is unacceptable for charity trustees to be caught between the legal duty to secure assets to which the charity is entitled and the threat of huge legal costs being imposed for attempting to do so.

“It is crucial that this matter is finally settled, one way or the other, so charities can be more certain of the legal landscape, and can plan accordingly.

“This case also highlights how important it is for people thinking of leaving money to charity in their will to inform those closest to them of their wishes during their lifetime.”
The appeal is due to take place later this year.

Directory: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)

Place a comment

Phil Atkinson
None
none
11 Mar 2010

What a joke. Another cleverly prepared statement by the RSPCA PR machine to make it sound as if they are the caring charity they were always meant to be and that they have in some way been wronged.

This is just another example of how pig headed this charity is, and now to use the names of two other charities to try and substantiate their 'claim'.

Maybe they should start doing what they are meant to do and concentrate on animal welfare rather than trying to steal the deceased money

[Reply]

Pamela Parry-Jones
Fundraiser
Age related
10 Mar 2010

The RSPCA in the past (remember the £40m spent on new premises in Horsham when they caught a chill during the first economic slump) seem very prone to getting involved in these headline-catching situations. Concentrate more on the animals. Dr Gill had spent her life helping her parents with their farm and in my humble opinion is fully entitled to her legacy.

Animal charities, together with children's cancer charities, are head and shoulders above those say, who try to care for older people, when it comes to attracting donations.

Pamela

[Reply]

Victoria Thomas
Administrator
Animal Justice Campaign
10 Mar 2010

There was a time when any charity would have been hugely grateful for any bequest, no matter how big or small. This is the third case in recent months where the RSPCA have shown themselves to be grasping and greedy and totally oblivious to the needs of any family members. The RSPCA refused mediation several times in the Gill case, refused a considerable amount of money from Dr Gill, and ploughed on, arrogantly believing that they have a God-given right to this farm.

There was another case where the RSPCA stood to gain £400,000 if they re-homed a Collie belonging to an old man who had died. They killed the Collie the day they took it in and so lost the bequest.

As the richest animal charity in Britain, it does not look good for the RSPCA to be seen grubbing in court for money that they are trying to take from families of the deceased, and I will certainly never support them.

[Reply]

Andrew Meads
Founder
Safewings Wildlife Conservation Projects
10 Mar 2010

It is the RSPCA that need to be warned about spending public donations to fund legal appeals against the decision of the judge. The public has lost belief in the RSPCA and unless the RSPCA get back into line and act appropriately as an animal charity and start to help animals they will find public and media support dwindle even further. In the past 10 years the RSPCA have become obsessed with political power and animal welfare has been compromised.

[Reply]

Carl Allen
none
none
9 Mar 2010

So why have these leading bodies not said when they will look at an alternative dispute resolution policy that suits these situations?

And this is an era when many of the children of the rich and super rich are being taught about philantrophy and the extreme attitudes that some charities may take.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.