RSPCA loses appeal over Gill legacy case 5

Governance | Tania Mason | 1 Dec 2010

The RSPCA has lost its appeal against the High Court ruling that overturned the will of a woman who left her £2m farm to the charity.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court decision that the 287-acre farm should be inherited by the woman’s daughter, lecturer Dr Christine Gill (pictured), and not by the RSPCA.

In October 2009 the High Court had overturned the will, agreeing with Dr Gill’s argument that her mother had been forced into making the will by her domineering husband and would actually have wanted to leave the legacy to her daughter.

The RSPCA decided to appeal against the decision, claiming that it had a duty to its beneficiaries to try to secure the legacy for charitable purposes.

But after a one-day hearing yesterday, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling, though it will not publish its detailed reasons until a later date.

After the appeal hearing, Dr Gill released a statement which said: “It was a matter of huge regret and disappointment to me and my family that the RSPCA chose not to accept the original decision, forcing us to endure another court hearing.

“We can now settle back into our lives on the family farm that I love, and which I have dedicated many years to maintaining.”

In a statement, RSPCA chief executive Mark Watts said: “The RSPCA is convinced that on the basis of evidence submitted to the High Court, Mrs Gill’s testamentary wishes were clear.”

Directory: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
Who's Who: Mark Watts

Place a comment

Adrian Beney
Partner
Iain More Associates Ltd
3 Dec 2010

What a nasty mess. A classic "lose-lose" situation where no-one will come out smelling of roses. I think before we say that the RSCPA were completely wrong to pursue this, or that Mrs Gill was completely wrong to contest it, we need to wait to hear why it is that the Court of Appeal has upheld the original High Court decision.

As the appeal itself, it's all about proportionality isn't it? The RSPCA would have been mad to spend £1.5 million chasing £100k, but would we think differently if the farm had been worth £3 million, or £10 million?

If I were at the RSPCA I'd be having some pretty challenging meetings with my lawyers, asking them why they felt it was worth going to appeal over. And as a Trustee I'd be having some pretty searching conversations with my executives. I suspect most reasonable people would understand the RSCPA pursuing the first case; the appeal is harder to understand unless the lawyers really felt they had a good chance of winning.

[Reply]

Andrew Meads
Founder
Safewings Wildlife Conservation Projects
2 Dec 2010

Mrs Gill actually offered half of the estate to the rspca to keep it out of Court. But the greedy rspca wanted it all.
This case reflects very badly on the rspca especially when you consider that the costs incurred by the rspca which could be in excess of £1.5m came from the publics` donations which were donated for the welfare of animals and not pursuing monies through the Courts.
This waisted £1.5m would have helped tens of thousands of animals had the smaller independant animal charities received it. The rspca have become the most complained about charity in the UK and strangely enough mainly from the animal loving public. They have forgotten the very essentials they were founded on and become a politically money orientated business.

[Reply]

Geraldine Long
2 Dec 2010

Personal and moral opinions aside, the legacy officer at RSPCA was doing exactly what was expected of them in their role. Being a legacy officer is not just about the nice conversations we have with potentail legators, or the satisfaction of showing the bereaved family what their loved one's legacy has helped achieve. It is also about making difficult decisions and running the risk of upsetting families and loved ones. A Legacy Officer's lot is certainly not always a happy one!

[Reply]

Vanessa
2 Dec 2010

Absolutely disgusting! What's the point of making a will if the courts aren't going to uphold it. The RSPCA had every right to contest the decision, and I hope that they continue to do so.

What they fail to mention is that in the will, Mrs Gill said why she didn't want to give the inheritance to her daughter, stating that their daughter had been provided for all her life, including helping to buy the farm house, in which she now lives in.

They wanted to give the money to the RSPCA, it was their last wish and it should be respected.

[Reply]

Karen Drury
1 Dec 2010

How much damage has the RSPCA done to its reputation in pursuing this? For those onlookers who are neutral - i.e. that don't prefer animals to humans - it looks grubby indeed particularly as one wonders if they would have appealed a smaller amount of money?

[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.