- Losing counsel series: Nahajec v Fowle – has Ilott v Mitson changed anything?
- November 8, 2017 | Author: Paul Hewitt
- Law Firm: Withers LLP - London Office
Marisa Lloyd of St Philips Chambers appeared for the Defendant who sought to preserve his interest in the residuary estate in the face of an adult child 1975 Act claim.
The Claimant's parents separated when she was 11. She was 31 at the time of trial. Post separation the claimant contended there was contact for a period of around 2 – 3 years around 2007. The Defendant was in no position to challenge her evidence.
The Claimant said that she wanted to establish herself as a veterinary nurse. Prior to trial she sought £70,227 to pay course fees, transport costs, to discharge existing debts and to cover living expenses for approximately 2.5 years. This increased on the day of trial by around £5,000 to account for previously unaccounted debts.
The Judge awarded a capitalised sum of £30,000.
Ms Lloyd will consider how the Judge applied his understanding of Ilott v Mitson, the factors influencing him in that decision, and any lessons to be learned.