A toy tycoon’s son has failed in his attempt to cut his half-brother out of the family inheritance despite proving in court that his sibling was not his father’s biological child.
Jonathan and Edward Marcus faced off in court over a lucrative family trust set up by their father, Stuart Marcus, who created a £14.5 million toy and board game empire.
Mr Marcus arranged for 43 per cent of the business be put into a trust for the benefit of his family before his death in 2019 aged 86.
But Jonathan, 42, sued Edward, 46, at the High Court, claiming that the elder son was actually the product of a one-night stand their mother, Patricia Marcus, had while her husband was away on business in the 1970s.
The terms of the trust decreed that it should only benefit Mr Marcus’s children and their spouses, so eliminating “half-brother” Edward, claimed Jonathan.
After three days in court, Master Matthew Marsh ruled that the “cogent and reliable” DNA test evidence proved that Edward is not Mr Marcus’s son.
However, he went on to find that the family trust does not exclude Edward, as its terms would also count “non-biological” offspring as beneficiaries.
The court heard Mr Marcus founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits, later transferring the company HQ to Swaffham in Norfolk.
The trust he set up holds shares in “valuable family companies”, the court heard, including a 43 per cent stake in the Kitfix Swallow Group of firms which had an estimated value of £14.5 million in 2019.
The paternity issue developed after the siblings’ mother, now 81, shocked Edward with the “monumental” news that he was not Mr Marcus’s biological son during a conversation 14 years ago.
Edward kept the secret for more than a decade but his brother finally discovered the news last year, triggering the court battle.
The trust was in favour of “the children and remoter issue of the settlor and their spouses”.
And the key question boiled down to “whether Edward and his family fall within that description” Jonathan’s barrister Thomas Braithwaite told the judge while sketching out the case.
Mrs Marcus told the court she had no doubt that Edward’s real father was a lawyer named Sydney Glossop with whom she had a brief encounter more than 40 years ago.
After his mother’s confession, Edward searched online to see if he could find out anything about his mystery father, finally tracking him down to a retirement home near Birmingham, which he and his mother visited.
Once there, he witnessed the pair of them “cuddling”. Edward, told the court: “I saw her sit on the bed and cuddle him and I was shocked to see her behaving that way because it wasn’t the way I saw her behave with my father.”
Edward said that in time he began to harbour doubts about his mother’s news, particularly as it seemed to conflict with his knowledge about strong family characteristics he shared with Mr Marcus such as asthma and poor eyesight.
Mrs Marcus, however, gave evidence confirming her belief that Edward is Mr Glossop’s son, adding that her former lover had also “accepted Edward as his son”.
She told the court she first met Mr Glossop in the 1960s when she was working as a secretary in Norwich and he was nearly 30 years her senior.
They had a brief relationship before she married Mr Marcus but after the marriage Mr Glossop “made a nuisance and rang me up constantly”, culminating in a one-night encounter in 1977 while Mr Marcus was away on business.
“It was at this meeting that Edward was conceived,” she explained.
Master Marsh termed the DNA evidence “cogent and reliable” in showing that Jonathan and Edward are half-siblings, and found that “Edward and Jonathan do not share a biological father”.
But the DNA evidence could not pin down which of the pair was Mr Marcus’s son, said the judge, making his widow’s account of her relationship with Mr Glossop crucial to the case.
“Patricia is the only person with first-hand knowledge about her relationship with Mr Glossop,” the judge told the court.
“Only she would know about her sexual activity with Stuart, his absences on business, her sexual activity with Mr Glossop.
“Her evidence about Stuart’s absence for a period in mid-1977 was not capable of being challenged.
“Even accepting the possibility that she has convinced herself of a set of facts, as to the date of conception and her sexual partner at that time, I consider it is more likely than not her recollection about the core facts is correct.
“I find that Stuart was not Edward’s biological father.”
The judge went on to rule that the aim of Mr Marcus’s trust was to benefit both Jonathan and Edward, whether or not they were his biological sons.
“A reasonable person in knowledge of the relevant facts would readily conclude that, when using ‘children’, Stuart intended this word to be understood as meaning Edward and Jonathan; and not Edward and Jonathan provided they are in fact my biological sons,” he concluded.
The judge will now draw up an order putting his ruling into effect.
Mrs Marcus and Jonathan are both named as directors of most of the family companies, the court heard, but Edward quit the business in 2014 following what Jonathan’s barrister labelled a “gradual but complete breakdown in relations”.
Source Agencies
