A builder who is suing his sister after he was ‘left with virtually nothing’ from their mother’s £5million fortune was cut out of the will because she was ‘ashamed’ of him cheating on his wife, a court heard.
Gary MacDougall, 70, had expected he and his family to split his multi-millionaire mother Jeanne MacDougall’s estate with his sister Sandra Thomas, 65, and her husband, Lloyd ‘Philip’ Thomas.
But after a change of her will in 2011 and a series of property sales and gifts, Mr MacDougall was left with ‘nil’ to inherit from his mother’s fortune when she died in April 2020.
He is now suing at the High Court to overturn his mother’s last will and also accusing his sister and brother-in-law of plundering £1.685million of their mother’s money while she was still alive.
He also claims that the couple ‘procured by undue influence’ a £1.7million house to be gifted to them when his mother was not mentally capable of doing so and despite it having earlier been promised to him.
However, this week, Mr MacDougall was forced to deny that his mother had real reasons to cut him out – including her shame at him having cheated on his wife, Anna, with a local council worker.
His sister’s lawyers said that their mother – as a member of an older, more traditional generation – was ‘disappointed’ with and ‘ashamed’ of her son, supported his wife amid his infidelity and may have cut him out of the will after ‘brooding’ about the affair.
But giving evidence, Mr MacDougall denied he was disinherited because of his admitted affair, telling a judge his ‘sharp as a tack’ mother would have given him ‘both barrels’ if she was really angry with him.
The MacDougall family fortune derived from the siblings’ property developer father Alec MacDougall’s ‘substantial real estate portfolio’, Judge Nicola Rushton KC heard.
Gary MacDougall, 70, is suing his sister and brother-in-law to overturn his mother’s last will and has also accused them of plundering £1.685million of their mother’s money while she was still alive
A new will was made in 2011, under which all four properties went to his sister Sarah Thomas (pictured) and brother-in-law, leaving Mr MacDougall with ‘virtually nothing’
Development properties were mainly bought up in the Acton and Ealing areas of west London, renovated and rented out, generating significant profits.
For Mr MacDougall, barrister Harry Martin claimed that over the years it had been made clear to the two siblings by their parents that they would ultimately receive ‘broadly equal financial treatment and inheritance.’
This included his father insisting to Mr MacDougall that he would not require a significant pension pot as he would inherit property on which to live on in his retirement, said the barrister.
Following their father’s death, the siblings’ mother made a will in 2008, which Mr Martin said amounted to a ‘broadly equal’ split between her son and his family on one side and daughter and son-in-law on the other.
Under that will, Mr MacDougall and his family would receive properties in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while his sister and brother-in-law got houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens and most of the cash in her bank accounts.
But another will was then made in 2011, under which all four properties went to his sister and brother-in-law and Mrs Thomas would continue to receive the majority of her savings.
Mr MacDougall and Mrs Thomas would split the small amount that was left, but due to the costs and expenses of estate administration, that is ‘likely to be worth nil,’ Mr Martin says.
Now suing, Mr MacDougall, who had worked with his mother in the family business, claims the will is invalid due to the influence Mrs Thomas and her husband had on their mother, who had by then ‘lost almost all of her independence.’
He also claims the pensioner lacked the necessary mental capacity due to dementia when she signed the will and did not properly understand its effect, having been made at a time when she was elderly and dependent on his sister and brother-in-law.
Mr MacDougall had expected he and his family to split his multi-millionaire mother’s estate with his sister her husband, Lloyd ‘Philip’ Thomas (pictured)
Mr MacDougall is also challenging the gift of a house, which he says is worth £1.7million, that was given to Mrs Thomas and her husband in 2015
He is challenging the 2015 gift to Mrs Thomas and her husband of the Avenue Crescent house, which he says was promised to him and worth £1.7miilion, but done at a time when his mother did not have capacity to make it. His sister values it at under £1million.
Mr MacDougall is also laying claim to a share of about £1.685million of his mother’s money, which he says was ‘misappropriated’ from her bank accounts before she died and spent by his sister and brother-in-law on themselves and their family.
The money went on meals at the Ivy, holidays, new cars, shopping trips, their daughter’s wedding at the Savoy and other things, he says.
But for the couple, who are now estranged, Alexander Learmonth KC denied any undue influence on their part and the suggestion that their mother was not capable of making a valid will as there were no signs of any problems beyond occasional absent-mindedness.
And he told the judge that there were perfectly explainable reasons why had changed her will in favour of her daughter and son-in-law, who had looked after her in her old age.
He told the judge: ‘Like all testators, Jeanne clearly had a variety of reasons for wanting to make a new will in the terms she did.
‘To some extent, it would be speculation as to what they were, and the court is not required to indulge in that, but 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.
‘They may also have included growing irritation with Gary, whether that be his marital infidelity, sharp words in the office, infrequency of visits or otherwise.
‘It certainly cannot be said that the 2011 will is in any way irrational.’
Cross-examining Mr MacDougall in the witness box, the barrister put it to him that his mother had been disappointed with him when he had an admitted affair with a council worker in 2008.
‘Your mother, being of the older generation and being fond of your wife, was not happy with you, was she?’ he put to Mr MacDougall. ‘She was very disappointed with what you had done.’
‘She wasn’t happy, no – she was delighted when it concluded,’ he replied, but added: ‘She reminded me of my responsibilities, but it was a very brief fling. If she was cross with me, mum would’ve let me know. She would’ve given me both barrels.’
He insisted that the fact that the affair happened before his mother made her ‘broadly equal’ 2008 will showed his infidelity didn’t affect her decisions.
But suggesting that his mother may have been ‘brooding’ on it for some time, Mr Learmonth said: ‘Just because you don’t act on a motive at one point, it doesn’t mean it’s not still there later.’
There had been a difference between the relationships the pensioner had with her two children, describing that with Mr MacDougall as being ‘fractious’, particularly in the office at work.
‘Jeanne was always very close with her daughter Sandra – ‘joined at the hip,’ Mr MacDougall said – and very fond of her son-in-law Philip,’ he told the judge.
In making her final will, she was also very conscious of the benefits Mr MacDougall had already received, having ultimately become sole owner of the family business.
He had received ‘huge assets’ and now has ‘a considerable portfolio of rental properties, as well as a holiday home in Cyprus and an oast house in the countryside,’ the barrister said.
However, Mr MacDougall insisted that his success was down to him ‘grafting’ while his sister and brother-in-law lived ‘the life of luxury,’ adding: ‘Where’s the reward?’
His barrister, Mr Martin, said the former couple had ‘extracted significant sums’ from the mother’s accounts while they had a power of attorney over her between 2012 and 2020 and had ‘misappropriated’ almost £1.7million.
Their barrister, Mr Learmonth, said they accept overstepping their duties under the power of attorney by spending her money on themselves and their family.
However, he said it was essentially ‘an advance on their inheritance’ because most of her cash was destined for Mrs Thomas under both the 2008 and 2011 wills anyway.
He said they had not been properly advised about what they could do and believed they could deal with her money in the way they believed she would have wanted, spending it in order to reduce inheritance tax.
‘Importantly, Jeanne never suffered as a result – she always enjoyed every comfort,’ he said. ‘It made no odds whatsoever to Gary, whichever will is valid.’
However, Mr Martin said the wills only gave Mrs Thomas the money that was in her accounts and, because it was spent, it was not in those accounts when her mother died.
He said Mr MacDougall should get half of the value of the sum taken, since his mother would have had a claim for that sum against the couple during her lifetime, with that then passing into her remaining estate to be split between him and his sister.
When she died, their mother’s fortune was valued at £2.5million, but Mr MacDougall says it would have been over £5million but for the ‘misappropriated’ £1.685million and other property transferred out of her estate before she died.
The trial continues.
