The son of a toy maker is combating to cease his half-brother getting his palms on the £14.5 million household fortune after studying he was born out of their mom’s affair.
Stuart Marcus began out promoting dolls’ homes from a room above a small east London toy store within the Sixties earlier than happening to construct a multi-million video games empire.
Shortly earlier than he died aged 86 in 2020, he put £14.5 million price of firm shares into belief for his ‘youngsters’, with brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, each benefiting.
However the household was thrown into turmoil after it emerged Edward was not Stuart’s son, however as an alternative the product of an affair between his mum, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop.
Final yr, a choose dominated that regardless of the revelation, Edward may nonetheless profit from the fortune on the idea that each brothers had been supposed to share.
Join all the newest tales
Begin your day knowledgeable with Metro's Information Updates publication or get Breaking Information alerts the second it occurs.
Stuart Marcus – dubbed ‘a modest man with an enormous dream and an enormous coronary heart’ by enterprise colleagues – based Kitfix Hobbies in 1962.
He carved out a serious area of interest in toys, board video games and craft kits, later transferring the corporate HQ to Swaffham, in Norfolk.
The disputed belief he arrange holds shares valued at £14.5m within the household corporations, wherein each brothers labored because the model grew and diversified into different fields corresponding to property, with Jonathan heading up profitable industrial operations in Germany.
However since 2016, relations between the 2 brothers soured, culminating within the Excessive Courtroom conflict, wherein Jonathan claimed Edward must be excluded from benefiting beneath the belief.
Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand his mum Patricia Marcus, 82, had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop whereas his dad was away on enterprise.
That declare was based mostly on Jonathan’s discovery in 2023 of the ‘monumental’ information that Patricia had confided in Edward that he wasn’t Stuart’s son throughout a confidential chat 14 years in the past.
Though Edward saved his secret for greater than a decade, when Jonathan discovered the information, it triggered a courtroom struggle as he tried to have Edward eliminated as a beneficiary of the multimillion-pound household belief established earlier than Stuart’s loss of life.
Jonathan commissioned DNA proof to again his declare, whereas his mum advised the courtroom herself that she had little doubt that Edward’s actual dad was Sydney, with whom she had a quick encounter over 40 years in the past.
After three days in courtroom final yr, a choose, Grasp Matthew Marsh, discovered that the proof confirmed that Edward isn’t Stuart’s son.
He highlighted the ‘cogent and dependable’ DNA take a look at proof, in addition to compelling testimony from the 2 half-siblings’ personal mom.
However he went on to seek out that the household belief doesn’t exclude Edward, as within the context of the belief settlement, the phrase ‘youngsters’ meant each boys.
‘An inexpensive individual in data of the related information would readily conclude that, when utilizing “youngsters”, Stuart supposed this phrase to be understood as that means Edward and Jonathan; and never Edward and Jonathan supplied they’re in truth my organic sons,’ he concluded.
This week, representing Jonathan in an enchantment on the Excessive Courtroom, Mr Braithwaite argued that Grasp Marsh had received it improper and that Edward mustn’t profit.
Stuart’s belief described the beneficiaries as his ‘youngsters’, which Mr Braithwaite insisted may solely be taken in its peculiar that means, ‘organic youngsters’.
‘The phrase “youngsters” merely can’t be a placeholder for 2 particular individuals,’ he advised Excessive Courtroom choose, Sir Anthony Mann.
He added there had been a ‘frequent mistaken assumption’ when the doc was created that the boys had been each Stuart’s youngsters.
‘All the pieces else within the background must be seen by way of the prism of that mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart’s organic son,’ he mentioned.
‘What does youngsters imply? It means organic youngsters, after all.
‘Stuart supposed to learn Edward, however he believed Edward was his organic baby.
‘The actual fact Edward was introduced up within the household and the actual fact the aim of this settlement was to learn the individuals Stuart regarded as his youngsters merely goes to ascertain that the interpretation of the phrase “youngsters” that must be adopted is the peculiar one.
‘An inexpensive individual with all of the background, together with the mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart’s organic baby, goes to say it refers to organic youngsters.’
However for Edward, barrister Matthew Mills argued that it was apparent that Stuart had supposed to learn Edward and urged the choose to dismiss Jonathan’s enchantment.
‘Jonathan is doing this to strive to remove from Edward any rights on this multi-million pound household enterprise,’ he advised the Excessive Courtroom choose.
‘It’s totally applicable, on the information of this case, to outline the category of beneficiaries as Edward and Jonathan – because the grasp did.
‘Stuart supposed to learn Edward, who he designated and regarded as his baby. Realistically, the cheap individual would suppose that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement.’
Following final yr’s trial, Edward, now an in-house solicitor for a housing firm, was left having to pay £150,000 in direction of his brother’s authorized payments after Grasp Marsh criticised him for bringing the paternity struggle to courtroom.
He mentioned that, as soon as the DNA proof was recognized, it was ‘as clear as could possibly be’ that he was not going to have the ability to show he was Stuart’s organic son.
Following a half-day in courtroom, Sir Anthony reserved his judgment on Jonathan’s bid to exclude his brother from the household fortune till a later date.
Get in contact with our information staff by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For extra tales like this, check our news page.