A FARMER’S daughter at the centre of a £2m inheritance battle with the RSPCA last night claimed she had offered the charity 75 per cent of the farm before the matter went to Court.

Christine Gill hit out at the RSPCA after the charity claimed it had tried to settle their dispute “through compromise”.

The High Court in Leeds ruled on Friday that a will signed by Dr Gill’s mother, which left the family farm to the animal charity, was invalid.

The decision means Dr Gill can reclaim 287-acre Potto Carr Farm, in Potto, North Yorkshire.

After the hearing on Monday, the RSPCA said it had “tried to settle the matter amicably before it even came to court”.

The charity said: “The RSPCA had made different offers to Dr Gill to settle this through possible compromises, including an offer of £650,000 plus her costs.”

However, in a statement issued through her solicitors yesterday, Dr Gill said that, in August 2007, she made an offer which would have left the charity with about 75 per cent of her mother’s estate.

She continued: “The RSPCA rejected that offer. I made three requests for it to participate in a mediation which is a well recognised method of resolving disputes before trial. The RSPCA refused to mediate, or meet me or my solicitors.”

She said the RSPCA made two offers.

The first was an offer of £50,000 plus costs.

The second was £650,000 plus costs, which Dr Gill estimates as 28 per cent of the estate.

Her solicitor, Mishcon de Reya, has also rejected a claim that the charity was “legally obliged” to pursue the case under charitable law.

In response, the charity said in a statement: “The RSPCA, nor any other charity, could walk away from a legacy as clear as the one left by Dr Gill’s parents.

“The will was very clear – in one sentence Dr Gill’s parents left their entire estate to the RSPCA, and in the next they said their daughter should receive nothing.

“In the ruling handed down last week, there was no criticism of the RSPCA’s handling of this case, and on one key point the judge actually ruled in the RSPCA’s favour.

The statement concluded: “The RSPCA did not make only two offers to resolve this dispute. However, we are unable to discuss the offers made given the pending appeal.”