A SECRET lovechild has won the right to pocket half of a toymaking tycoon’s £14.5million fortune, after his mum’s secret affair was revealed.
Stuart Marcus built a multi-million pound games empire after selling dolls’ houses from a room above a small East London toy shop in the 1960s.
Champion News Service LtdEdward Marcus has won the right to keep half the family fortune after a court battle[/caption]
Champion News ServiceToy tycoon Stuart Marcus founded Kitfix in 1962, turning it into a multi-million pound company[/caption]
Champion News ServiceJonathan Marcus and mum Patricia Marcus outside the High Court having launched a legal appeal[/caption]
Shortly before he died, he put £14.5m worth of company shares into trust for his “children,” with brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, both benefiting.
But the family was thrown into turmoil after the revelation that Edward was not Stuart’s son, but instead the product of an affair between his mum, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop.
Last year, a judge ruled that Stuart was not Edward’s dad, but said that Edward could still benefit from the £14.5m fortune on the basis that both brothers were intended to share.
The case returned to court last month, with lawyers for Jonathan arguing that it was wrong to let solicitor Edward share the wealth when he was not Stuart’s biological son.
But Jonathan’s case was thrown out this week after High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann ruled that, because Stuart had thought Edward was his true son and intended him to benefit, he should do so.
“Stuart chose to use a word – ‘children’ – which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly,” he said.
“This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world – Stuart’s real world in particular – Edward was Stuart’s child.”
Stuart Marcus – dubbed “a modest man with a big dream” by business colleagues – 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, Norfolk.
The disputed trust he set up holds shares valued at £14.5m in the family companies, in which both brothers worked as the brand grew and diversified into other fields such as property.
But since 2016, relations between the two brothers soured, climaxing in the court clash, in which Jonathan claimed Edward should be excluded from benefiting under the trust.
Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand his mum Patricia Marcus, 82, had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while his dad was away on business.
That claim was based on Jonathan’s discovery in 2023 of the “monumental” news that Patricia had confided in Edward that he wasn’t Stuart’s son during a confidential chat 14 years ago.
Although Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, when Jonathan learned the news it triggered a court fight as he tried to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of the multimillion-pound family trust established before Stuart’s death, aged 86, in 2020.
Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim, while his mum told the court herself that she had no doubt that Edward’s real dad was Sydney, with whom she had a brief encounter over 40 years ago.
From the witness box, Edward told how his mum suddenly spilled the revelation about her affair and his paternity during a meeting at his home in 2010.
He said he then searched online for anything about his mystery dad, finally tracking him down to a retirement home near Birmingham, which he and his mum visited in order to meet Sydney.
Once there, he witnessed the pair of them “cuddling,” said Edward, telling 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.”
However, he said he began to harbour doubts about his mum’s news and claimed she went back on her account in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his dad.
After three days in court last year, a judge, Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart’s son.
But he went on to find that the family trust does not exclude Edward, as in the context of the trust settlement, the word “children” meant both boys.
“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.
Appealing at the High Court, Jonathan’s barrister Thomas Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit.
Stuart’s trust described the beneficiaries as his “children,” which Mr Braithwaite insisted could only be taken in its ordinary meaning, “biological children.”
“The word ‘children’ simply cannot be a placeholder for two specific people,” he said, adding that there had been a “common mistaken assumption” when the document was created that the boys were both Stuart’s children.
“What does children mean? It means biological children, of course. Stuart intended to benefit Edward, but he believed Edward was his biological child.”
For Edward, barrister Matthew Mills argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan’s appeal.
“Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child,” he said. “Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement.”
Giving judgment, dismissing Jonathan’s appeal and clearing the way for Edward to share in the trust, Sir Anthony said Stuart had considered both boys to be his biological sons and treated them as such.
“He would naturally have described them as his biological children and as far as he and everyone else was concerned – apart from his wife and possibly Edward’s father – that is exactly what they were, though it is his personal view which is important for these purposes,” he continued.
“In that context Stuart chose to use a word – ‘children’ – which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly.
“This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world – Stuart’s real world in particular – Edward was Stuart’s child.
“Edward was treated for practical, familial and all other purposes as a biological child, nothwithstanding the true fact that he was not.
“Stuart’s intention is exactly the same….he intended the word to include Edward.
“I agree fully with the master in this conclusion, with the result that Edward is one of the settlor’s ‘children’ on the true construction of the settlement.”
Following last year’s trial, Edward, now an in-house solicitor for a housing company, was left having to pay £150,000 towards his brother’s legal bills after Master Marsh criticised him for bringing the paternity fight element of the case to court.
He said that, once the DNA evidence was known, it was “as clear as could be” that he was not going to be able to prove he was Stuart’s biological son.
However, after Sir Anthony’s decision, he will stand to benefit under the £14.5m trust.
Champion News ServiceStuart Marcus’ toy company grew from one room in East London to its current four-acre site at Swaffham, Norfolk, pictured[/caption]
Champion News ServiceThe toy company focussed on selling ‘Sequin Art’ crafts projects for kids[/caption] Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
