RSPCA Comes back for more

As those of you at our recent seminar will recall the RSPCA has recently been involved in two very expensive court case. Expensive for the RSPCA that is as they lost both claims and were ordered to pay costs in both. Despite that, the RSPCA has appealed both cases. Given the criticism of the RSPCA and their lawyers in both claims this might have been regarded as somewhat surprising.

RSPCA – v – Sharp and Others. Not such an incredible argument after all

As those at the seminar may recall in this case the RSPCA put forward an interpretation of the Will that would have left HMRC receiving nothing, the beneficiaries receiving £300,000 rather than £469,000, and the RSPCA receiving £652,820 instead of £370,153. Despite the Judge being of the opinion that their argument was exceedingly poor the RSPCA appealed claiming that the “ruling achieves the opposite effect of what Mr Mason (the deceased) intended”. They went on to say “(we) are appealing this Judgment because we remain committed to honouring Mr Mason’s clear intentions in his Will. We firmly believe Mr Mason wanted to benefit all those named in his Will and make sure no one would pay Inheritance Tax”.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the RSPCA’s arguments despite the Judge at first instance describing those arguments as being “so unlikely as to be incredible”.

There has been much legal debate about the merits or otherwise of this decision but, as we said in the seminar, and we make no apologies for reiterating here, this emphasises the importance of ensuring that your clients see experienced Will and Probate solicitors if they are seeking to leave bequests to charity. The lack of clarity in the Will regarding the testator’s intentions and the failure adequately to address the interaction of the nil rate band with other gifts in the Will has left all parties worse off than intended, the opposite of that desired by the testator.

Dr Gill - RSPCA’s costs burden increases

Not content with appealing that case the RSPCA also appealed their claim against Dr Gill where they had been left with the bill for over a million pounds of Dr Gill’s costs. On the facts as initially reported this might have seemed a more finely balanced case and one which stood more prospects of success than the Sharp case but one can have little but sympathy for Dr Gill who seemed to be up against opponents who did not understand the meaning of compromise. The RSPCA was landed with such a large bill because of their totally unreasonable attitude to the litigation and towards seeking to find a sensible solution to the dispute.

The RSPCA appealed against findings of undue influence so Dr Gill cross appealed against the finding that her mother knew and approved the contents of her Will. This time the RSPCA lost as the Court of Appeal accepted Dr Gill’s cross appeal, which meant they did not have to decide the RSPCA’s appeal on undue influence!

Again this merely highlights the necessity to ensure that where charities are concerned there can be no room left for argument in relation to a Will as otherwise there is a likelihood of strongly contested, expensive litigation.

It is interesting to note that the RSPCA were sending out publicity attacking the initial Judgment as being an attack on freedom for testators to leave their estates to whoever they wish. This is an interesting spin on the Judgment. It does not seem to us that the Judgment is an attack on testamentary freedom at all.