Three animal charities have said they are "very concerned" after losing the right to remain the sole beneficiaries of a widow's £500,000 will.

A court of appeal yesterday ruled that £164,000 should go to the woman's estranged daughter. In a joint statement yesterday, the Blue Cross, RSPCA, and RSPB said they were “surprised and disappointed” by the court's decision and concerned it could open the door to further cases of charity will contestations.

Mother-of-five Heather Ilott was awarded the money yesterday following a ten year legal battle with the charities.

Ilott’s mother, Melita Jackson, died in 2004, aged 70, leaving all of her assets to the three charities. In 2007 Ilott was awarded £50,000 by the county court on the grounds that her mother had been “unreasonable, capricious and harsh” towards her daughter.

In 2011 a court of appeal ruled the sum insufficient, but in 2013, charities won a ruling that Ilott should receive nothing.

That ruling was overturned yesterday.

A joint statement by all three charities said they were “very concerned about the long-term implications for the charitable sector”.

“Charities rely upon income from legacies and the outcome of this case could have serious ramifications for the future of the charity sector as a whole”, they said.

Without legacy income “much of their work would not be possible”, the statement said.

Charities make nearly £2bn a year from legacy income, according to the Institute of Fundraising.

Sally de la Bedoyere, chief executive of the Blue Cross said the charity was “deeply saddened” by the decision.

“Over the past eight years we have defended the wishes left by Mrs Jackson to the very best of our abilities so are deeply saddened that the courts have decided not to honour them,” she said.

David Bowles, assistant director external affairs of RSPCA said in a statement that legacy income “pays for one out of every two animals we save”.

“Without it, much of our work would not be possible,” he said. “This court decision goes against a person’s desire to give their money to whomever they wish. We are immensely grateful for the kindness of people like Mrs Jackson who choose to remember the needs of animals in her will and hope this does not stop others continuing to give money to help suffering animals.”

Before her death, Jackson wrote a letter to accompany her will confirming her intention not to leave money to her daughter.

“If my daughter should bring a claim against my estate I instruct my executors to defend such a claim as I can see no reason why my daughter should benefit in any way from my estate….. I have made it clear to my daughter during her lifetime that she can expect no inheritance from me when I die”, the letter said.

'Serious questions'

Solicitor James Aspden, acting on behalf of the three charities, said the ruling raised “serious questions about whether people generally have the freedom to choose who they want to leave money to in their will.

“This is a worrying decision for anyone who values having the freedom to choose who will receive their property when they die," he said.

“The decision to allow this very late, further appeal against a Judgment delivered in 2007 can only encourage others to appeal and will further complicate the court’s task when deciding Inheritance Act claims.”

The rift between mother and daughter began after Ilott eloped with her teenage boyfriend at the age of 17, according to the Guardian newspaper. The pair remain married but the court heard she and her family were now living in poverty.

According to the newspaper, Ilott’s barrister, Brie Stevens-Hoare QC, told the court she was so poor, she had “never had a holiday”, “had difficulty affording clothes for her family”, “was “limited in the food she could buy” and that “much of what she had was old or second hand”.

He argued her father would have “turned in his grave at his widow’s meanness”.

The court heard that much of the widow’s wealth derived from assets paid for from the wages of Ilott’s father and from compensation money awarded after his death.

Mike Clarke, chief executive of the RSPB said it was "regrettable" that "occasionally courts need to become involved in interpreting the terms of a person’s will".

"Not only is it damaging to the work of charities, but it may also cause concern to people who intend to leave a gift to a charity they feel passionately about," he said. "I am somewhat reassured by the comments from our lawyer, who tells me the circumstances of this sad case are very unusual.”