Charity foots the bill over £2m Yorkshire estate left to the RSPCA

The animal charity was believed to be facing paying out costs of up to 1 million after Dr Christine Gill, from Northallerton, overturned her parents' will last year.

Dr Gill won the case after a deputy High Court judge at Leeds Combined Court ruled that the university lecturer's "domineering" father had coerced her mother into making the will, leaving their 287-acre farm to the RSPCA.

The court heard Dr Gill's parents left Potto Carr Farm, near Northallerton, to the RSPCA, despite Joyce Gill's "avowed dislike" of the charity. But the two parties failed to agree on who should foot the legal bill, which totalled around 1.3 million, with much of the debate centred on what opportunities were available to settle before the lengthy and costly trial.

In Leeds, Judge James Allen QC handed down his judgment on costs, which 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.

It 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 argument over exactly how much the RSPCA should be ordered to pay to Dr Gill continued. Tracey Angus, representing Dr Gill, argued that the animal charity should pay around 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 thereto which was somewhat unreasonable, out of step with the expectation of the court and the underlying spirit of the modern procedure thereof."

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.

In October 2007, Dr Gill then made a counter-offer 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.

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 today 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 - an only child - 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, also aged 82, that she 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, her severe anxiety and her 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 date next week.

After the hearing today, Dr Gill said it was a relief to know she would not have to pay all her costs.

She said: "The judgment reflects the attitude the RSPCA have taken right through this, they wouldn't talk to me ever."

Dr Gill continued: "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, that it was a compassionate organisation and that I was the barrier to settlement. Today's decision sets the record straight."

Mark Keenan, a partner at Mishcon de Reya solicitors, 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 today."

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."