The Court of Appeal has today published its reasons for rejecting the RSPCA’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to overturn the will of Mrs Joyce Gill.

The unanimous decision of the three Appeal Court judges was that the will was invalid because Mrs Gill suffered from a rare mental disorder and so did not “know and approve” of its contents.

The £2.4m estate will now pass to Mrs Gill’s daughter Christine, and not to the charity as had been stipulated in the will.

The Appeal Court judges said that although they did not agree with all the findings of the trial judge, that in itself was not enough of a reason to overturn his conclusion that the will was unsound.

In the judgment, Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, said that the will’s validity was called into question by evidence that Mrs Gill had been very fond of and dependent upon her daughter, and had no apparent previous connection with the RSPCA.

In fact, on separate occasions she had even referred to the charity as “a waste of time” and “a bunch of townies”.

The fact that Mrs Gill suffered from severe agoraphobia and panic disorder meant it was very unlikely that she knew and understood the instructions in her will, despite the trial judge's view that she did.

‘Exceptional’ case

The Appeal Court judges stressed that this case was highly unusual because of the “relatively unusual mental condition” that Mrs Gill suffered from.

Lord Neuberger said: “A court should be very slow to find that a will does not represent the genuine wishes of the testatrix simply because its terms are surprising, inconsistent with what she said during her lifetime, unfair, or even vindictive or perverse.

“There may be a danger of this submission being seen as something of a green light to disappointed beneficiaries, and in particular to close relatives of a testatrix who have not benefited from her will, to challenge the will even where it has been read over to the testatrix, or to appeal a full and careful first instance decision upholding a will’s validity.

“It is therefore right to emphasise that the facts of this case are quite exceptional.”

RSPCA 'worse off in terms of costs'

Mishcon de Reya, the law firm representing Dr Christine Gill, said the judgment meant that the RSPCA is now in a worse position costs-wise than it was after the first case. The Appeal Court judges agreed with Dr Gill's arguments that Mrs Gill did not know and approve the will and so it was unnecessary for the court to consider the RSPCA's appeal against the decision that Mr Gill had coerced Mrs Gill into signing it.

Mark Keenan, partner at the firm, said: "Charities should not be alarmed by this decision. The case was very fact specific".

Keenan also said that the costs orders made against the RSPCA, that it bears its own costs and has to pay most of Dr Gill's costs, "reflects the courts' decision that it was unreasonable for the RSPCA to fight this case both at first instance and on appeal".

RSPCA stands by its decision to appeal

The RSPCA said it was "deeply disappointed" that the will has been overturned and that it remained concerned about "the erosion of freedom to leave one’s money to whoever people choose". 

"Charities increasingly face challenges by disappointed relatives disputing wills (it is not the charities who dispute the wills!)," said the RSPCA in a statement.

"This has serious implications for the charity sector as much as it does for the principle of testamentary freedom.

"The Lord Justices describe Mrs Gill's condition as 'so unusual that there is no way a solicitor or even most doctors would have appreciated her condition'.  The experts at the trial could not agree on the condition’s severity so there is no way that a charity could have known either."