Mrs Jackson died in 2004 and, apart from £5,000 for the BBC Benevolent Fund, left her entire estate of some £486,000 to Blue Cross, the RSPB and the RSPCA. Mrs Ilott was her 46-year-old estranged daughter; she and her husband had lived all their married lives without any financial or other connection to Mrs Jackson. Mrs Ilott knew that her mother intended to disinherit her; however, she challenged the will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and in 2007 DJ Million awarded her £50,000: that award, however, would have deprived her of means-tested state benefits. Her initial appeal against the level of the award was dismissed in 2014 but the Court of Appeal subsequently set aside DJ Million's order and awarded her £143,000, plus reasonable purchase costs to buy a property and payments of up to £20,000 structured so as to allow her to keep her state benefits. The three charities appealed.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal unanimously and restored DJ Million's original award, concluding that he had not made either of the errors on which the Court of Appeal had relied in order to revisit it. The order under appeal gave little if any weight to the estrangement or to Mrs Jackson's clear wishes. The claim of the charities was not on a par with that of Mrs Ilott. It was true that it was not based on personal need, but charities depend heavily on testamentary bequests for their work, which is by definition of public benefit and in many cases will be for demonstrably humanitarian purposes. More fundamentally, these charities were the chosen beneficiaries of the deceased. They did not have to justify a claim on the basis of need under the 1975 Act, as Mrs Ilott necessarily had to do. The Court of Appel's observation that, because the charities had no need for which to argue, they were not prejudiced by an increased award to Mrs Ilott was erroneous; their benefit was reduced by any such award. That might be the right outcome in a particular case, but it could not be ignored that an award under the Act was at the expense of those whom the testator intended to benefit.

In her concurring judgment Lady Hale called for reform, stating that the present law is unsatisfactory because it gives no guidance as to the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether an adult child is deserving or undeserving of reasonable maintenance. [Frank Cranmer]