THE RSPCA has this week been told that it may have to pay a legal bill of up to £1 million, after losing a three year battle over a £2 million Yorkshire estate left to the charity in a will.
Dr Christine Gill, a university lecturer from Northallerton, first contested the will in 2007, after a deputy High Court judge at Leeds Combined Court ruled that her ‘domineering’ father had coerced her mother into making the will, leaving their 287-acre farm to the RSPCA.

The court heard that Dr Gill's parents left Potto Carr Farm, near Northallerton, to the RSPCA, despite Joyce Gill's ‘avowed dislike’ of the charity. However, the two parties failed to agree on who should pay the legal bill, which totalled around £1.3 million.

In Leeds, Judge James Allen QC, handed down his judgment on costs, and ordered that the RSPCA should pay the majority of the overall bill. The judgment also found that the charity failed to resolve the dispute in an alternative way, despite repeated attempts at mediation by Dr Gill.
The judgement stated: ‘The RSPCA remained resolute in its opposition thereto which opposition continued after the commencement of the trial. Further, the RSPCA clearly displayed a lack of enthusiasm in relation to the resolution of the dispute by a negotiated settlement.’

Legal arguments also centred how much the RSPCA should be ordered to pay to Dr Gill. Tracey Angus, representing Dr Gill, argued that the animal charity should pay 85 to 90% of her client's costs. The court heard that Dr Gill's legal costs totalled more than £900,000, while the animal charity's legal bill came to around £400,000. The judge was told that more than 2,000 man hours had been spent on the case.

The judgment described the RSPCA's attitude towards mediation of the case as unreasonable. It stated: ‘Dr Gill demonstrated a willingness to have recourse to mediation in an attempt to resolve the dispute between the parties and she persevered in her attempts to persuade the (RSPCA) to adopt such a course but despite those attempts the RSPCA displayed an attitude which was somewhat unreasonable, out of step with the expectation of the court and the underlying spirit of the modern procedure.’

The judgment stated that Dr Gill asked the RSPCA to consider an alternative dispute resolution three times between January 2008 and September 2008, but each offer was rejected. There were also a number of settlement offers and counter-offers made by both parties from August 2007, which were all rejected.

In August 2007, Dr Gill offered the RSPCA £350,000 from the sale of the farm, two fields and the payment of costs but this was rejected by the charity in October the same year.
The RSPCA then made what was described as a final compromise offer of settlement of £50,000, plus costs, which was rejected by Dr Gill. a counter-offer was then made to the RSPCA of the farm and business, £500,000 and costs, with a legacy of £200,000 to be paid to her but this was also rejected.

Offer

In June 2008, the RSPCA made an offer to Dr Gill of £650,000 plus costs but this was eventually rejected by the lecturer after the charity said it would only mediate on this offer. Later the same month, Dr Gill made a counter-offer which would have provided the RSPCA with part of the farm worth approximately £850,000 and all the money in bank accounts connected to the estate. This was also not accepted by the charity.

Dr Gill made a final offer in October 2008 when she offered to accept 219.89 acres of land and leave the RSPCA the rest, which was under offer for £1.06 million.

The RSPCA, which the hearing, was told had funds in excess of £160 million, rejected the offer and the case eventually went to trial.

The court case heard how Dr Gill had been given repeated assurances she would inherit the farm, where she voluntarily helped out during her spare time over a period of more than 30 years, when her parents died.

Her father died in 1999, aged 82, but it was only when her mother died in 2006 that Dr Gill saw the will, in which her parents had left the farm to each other and then to the RSPCA when both died.

Last year's judgment said Mr Gill used his wife's agoraphobia, severe anxiety and dependence upon him to make her agree to a will that was contrary to what she wanted.

Judge Allen reserved a further written judgment on costs until a later date.

Attitude

After the hearing today, Dr Gill said: ‘The judgment reflects the attitude the RSPCA have taken right through this, they wouldn't talk to me ever. After last October's judgment, the RSPCA attempted to justify its stance by saying it was obliged under charity law to defend the claim to trial, This decision sets the record straight.’

Mark Keenan, who represented Dr Gill, added: ‘Parties who are not prepared to participate in recognised methods of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation will, like the RSPCA, be penalised in costs. That is what has happened here.’

The RSPCA, which the judgment stated would be able to recover some of its costs from the estate, said it had acted in accordance with the wishes of Mrs Gill and had no reason to doubt her intentions.

In a statement, a spokeswoman said:’At this stage no specific sums have been calculated so we don't yet know what either bill will be. It is therefore too early for us to comment on the costs when they are not known. However, we are happy that the judge has ordered that some of our costs are to come out of the estate and that we are not paying the whole of Dr Gill's legal costs.’

Send your opinion of this story below