Builder Takes Sister to High Court Over £5 Million Inheritance Dispute
A builder who was left with virtually nothing from his mother's £5 million fortune is suing his sister, claiming he was unfairly cut out of the will due to alleged undue influence rather than his admitted marital infidelity. Gary MacDougall, 70, had expected to split the substantial estate with his sister Sandra Thomas, 65, and her husband Lloyd 'Philip' Thomas, but found himself inheriting 'nil' following his mother Jeanne MacDougall's death in April 2020.
The Family Fortune and Changing Wills
The MacDougall family wealth originated from property developer Alec MacDougall's substantial real estate portfolio in west London's Acton and Ealing areas. Following their father's death, their mother made a will in 2008 that provided for a broadly equal split between her two children's families. Under this arrangement, Gary MacDougall and his family would receive properties in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while his sister and brother-in-law would get houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens plus most of the cash savings.
However, a new will created in 2011 dramatically altered this distribution. All four properties were directed to Sandra Thomas and her husband, with Mrs Thomas also receiving the majority of her mother's savings. Gary MacDougall and his sister would split only the small remaining amount, which his barrister Harry Martin says is 'likely to be worth nil' after estate administration costs.
Claims of Undue Influence and Mental Incapacity
Mr MacDougall, who worked with his mother in the family business, claims the 2011 will is invalid due to the influence his sister and brother-in-law exerted over their elderly mother. He alleges that by this time, Jeanne MacDougall had 'lost almost all of her independence' and lacked the necessary mental capacity due to dementia when she signed the document.
The builder is also challenging a 2015 gift of a house worth approximately £1.7 million to his sister and brother-in-law, claiming it was promised to him and transferred when his mother did not have the capacity to make such decisions. His sister values the property at under £1 million.
The Alleged Misappropriation of Funds
Further complicating the case, Mr MacDougall claims his sister and brother-in-law 'misappropriated' £1.685 million from their mother's bank accounts while she was still alive. He alleges this money was spent on luxury items including meals at the Ivy restaurant, holidays, new cars, shopping trips, and their daughter's wedding at the Savoy Hotel.
Barrister Harry Martin argues that the couple 'extracted significant sums' while holding power of attorney over their mother's affairs between 2012 and 2020. He contends that Mr MacDougall should receive half the value of this sum since his mother would have had a claim against the couple during her lifetime.
The Sister's Defence: Disappointment and Caregiving
Sandra Thomas's legal team presents a different narrative. They suggest Jeanne MacDougall, as a member of an older, more traditional generation, was 'disappointed' with and 'ashamed' of her son after he admitted to having an affair with a local council worker in 2008. They argue she may have 'brooded' about the infidelity over time, ultimately deciding to change her will in favour of her daughter and son-in-law, who cared for her in her old age.
Alexander Learmonth KC, representing the sister and brother-in-law, told the court: 'Like all testators, Jeanne clearly had a variety of reasons for wanting to make a new will in the terms she did. They certainly included a sense of how well-off Gary had become, and gratitude for the time and care given her by Philip and Sandra.'
Cross-Examination Revelations
During cross-examination, Mr MacDougall was questioned about whether his mother's disappointment over his affair influenced her decision. He responded: 'If she was cross with me, mum would've let me know. She would've given me both barrels.' He insisted that since the affair occurred before the 2008 will that provided for equal treatment, it couldn't have been a determining factor in the later disinheritance.
Mr Learmonth countered this argument, suggesting: 'Just because you don't act on a motive at one point, it doesn't mean it's not still there later.' He described the relationship between Jeanne MacDougall and her son as 'fractious,' particularly in their business interactions, while noting she was 'always very close with her daughter Sandra' and 'very fond of her son-in-law Philip.'
Financial Disparities and Legal Arguments
The defence highlighted that Gary MacDougall had already received substantial benefits, including becoming sole owner of the family business and accumulating 'a considerable portfolio of rental properties, as well as a holiday home in Cyprus and an oast house in the countryside.'
Mr MacDougall countered that his success resulted from hard work while his sister and brother-in-law lived 'the life of luxury,' asking: 'Where's the reward?'
Regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds, Mr Learmonth acknowledged the couple overstepped their duties under power of attorney but characterized the spending as 'an advance on their inheritance' since most cash was destined for Mrs Thomas under both wills anyway. He argued they hadn't been properly advised about their responsibilities and believed they were acting in accordance with what their mother would have wanted, including spending to reduce inheritance tax liabilities.
The trial continues as the High Court examines whether the 2011 will is valid, whether undue influence was exerted, and how the substantial family fortune should ultimately be distributed between the estranged siblings.
