Report comment

I recall from the reports of this case that the daughter's father had died just before she was born as a result of an industrial accident, and the damages were paid to the mother, who had no other assets of substance. That must give the daughter a very strong claim to a significant provision from the estate because the mother was holding the damages as a quasi-trustee for herself and the daughter and was arguably not free to pass the funds to the animal charities.

I think the action of the animal charities is quite deplorable and I wonder how they can justify this continued litigation to the Charity Commissioners, given the costs risks they must be running.