A multimillionaire towel tycoon who ended up in a bitter row with his son over a £2.2million country home has come out on top in a High Court battle.
Wealthy businessman Michael Parker, 61, said he transferred the ranch-style mansion to 31-year-old Thomas Parker-Bowyer for inheritance tax purposes as part of a trust agreement.
It was done on the clear understanding, he said, that until his death he would retain a ‘lifetime interest’ in the property.
But Mr Parker-Bowyer, claimed his father ‘gifted’ him the property in 2019 because he was so heavily mortgaged he risked losing the house.
He said he had used his own £200,000 savings and a £1.2m mortgage to pay off his father’s mortgage, with his father gifting him the remaining equity.
Multimillionaire Michael Parker, 61, has won the High Court battle he was locked in with his son – pictured in July
Mr Parker and his son Thomas Parker-Bowyer, pictured in March outside the disputed £2.2million mansion
The home, named The House, was at the centre of the spat after Mr Parker ‘gifted’ it to his son
Now, after the father and son ended up embroiled in an ‘especially acrimonious’ row, Mr Parker has won the right to the ranch-style property – known as The House.
A judge backed his case that he did not intend to give it away entirely, and that his son holds it on trust for him.
The judge, Deputy Master John Linwood, however, did not have time to go over the spat the father and son were having over £300,000 of luxury furniture – including a £12,000 mini grand piano, £40,000 worth of gym equipment and a Union Jack armchair.
Mr Parker claimed his son had put the pricey items ‘into skips’ of ‘flogged them off’.
But the judge asked the pair to sort out that part of the row outside of court.
When it came to The House, Master Linwood ruled that Mr Parker’s transfer was indeed a matter of tax planning and that, as the ‘centre of his wealth,’ the house was not something he would give away absolutely.
Sadly, the row split the family – Mr Parker said.
The 61-year-old previously told MailOnline of his youngest son: ‘He hasn’t just fallen out with me, he’s fallen out with the entire family.
Mr Parker has now won the battle over The House as a judge ruled he never intended to give it to his son ‘entirely’
Mr Parker-Bowyer had argued his father ‘gifted’ the mansion to him as it was so heavily mortgaged he risked losing the house
The 31-year-old, pictured with wife Kimberley, was also accused of ‘binning and fobbing off’ £300,000 of luxury furnishings and £12,000 grand piano
‘It’s all about money. He’s a brat and these are the consequences. There’s a line you don’t cross and he’s gone beyond it.
‘I don’t know why he’s behaving like this. It’s not the way he was brought up. It’s a totally disgraceful situation that nobody should be proud of. I actually said that to the judge in court last month.’
Meanwhile, Mr Parker-Bowyer had said: ‘I never wanted any of this but the house is rightfully mine. I have the title deeds and it is registered in my name. My father has no legal right to the house.’
Mr Parker was a successful property developer, who also ran a surgical supply business, before joining forces with his then wife Barbara Cooke in a thriving luxury towel business.
Through BC Softwear, the company jointly owned with his ex, he supplied luxury towels sourced from Turkey to exclusive hotels.
The mansion sat on a s secluded estate surrounded by two acres of grounds, boasting a seven-bed house at the centre of the case.
It has eight bathrooms, an enormous bespoke kitchen in American black walnut and Orissa Blue granite, a home cinema, aqua-lift swimming pool with adjustable floor height, gym and bar, as well as separate staff quarters.
Mr Parker lived at the disputed mansion until 2019 when he moved into another of his properties nearby, known as Babs Park, after which his former home was transferred to Thomas.
He admitted he transferred The House and its surrounding land and buildings to his son, but said that was strictly on condition that he retain a lifetime interest in the property himself.
His barrister Gavin McLeod told the judge that the transfer had been made in a bid to minimise inheritance tax and that he planned to leave Babs Park to his older son Eddie, thus treating both sons equally.
Mr McLeod said: ‘The idea was that legal title would go to his son, but that Mr Parker would have continuing use and occupation of the property.’
The barrister added that father and son had since ‘fallen out in serious measure’ over who is the true owner.
Thomas, who once worked alongside his dad before running his own floatation therapy business, insisted that the arrangement was different and that he had simply agreed to buy his dad out of the property as he was so heavily mortgaged he risked foreclosure.
His barrister, Piers Digby, said Mr Parker-Bowyer used £200,000 savings and a £1.2m mortgage to pay off his dad’s mortgage, with his father gifting him the remaining equity in the property.
The court heard Mr Parker had always been generous to his two sons, giving them Tag Heuer watches on their 21st birthdays and Rolex Submariner watches when they turned 25.
They also had expensive luxury holidays paid for and enjoyed the use of Jaguar cars through his business, as well as £5,000 gifts at Christmas.
In the witness box, Mr Parker told the judge: ‘In 2019, Tom had no assets apart from money I gave him. Where did he get his money from? From his dad. That’s where he got everything from.’
Ruling on the dispute, Master Linwood found that the agreement was that the house would be transferred to Thomas, subject to a life interest for his dad, who could do with it as he pleased.
Thomas would have to secure funding in his own name to pay off the mortgage, but his dad would then provide him with the money to make the loan repayments, he said.
Master Linwood continued: ‘Michael Parker’s overall persona from the documents and his oral evidence was that of a man in control of everything, no matter in whose name he had placed assets.
‘The property was the centre of his wealth and, whilst he had been very generous to his sons and recognised his possibly limited longevity, it was not something he would transfer absolutely.’
He said Mr Parker had made his inheritance tax plans known to several family members and that it involved him transferring the house but retaining control over it for life.
‘The reason for the transfer of The House, namely inheritance tax saving, was known to the wider family, as were the conditions in the general sense,’ he continued.
‘I find that the agreement between Mike and Tom was one by which Mike would continue to retain a beneficial interest for the rest of his life in The House, post the transfer.
‘I find it unlikely verging on the impossible that Mike would have handed over The House without such a reservation of his continuing rights.’
He made a declaration that The House is held on trust by Thomas for his dad.
Mr Parker had also sued for delivery up of, or damages in relation to, property and furnishings he claimed were worth £300,000, including a £12,000 mini grand piano, £40,000 worth of gym equipment and a Union Jack armchair.
He claimed his things had been put ‘into skips’ or ‘flogged off’ by Thomas since the pair fell out.
However, the judge ran out of time to hear full evidence on the issue and asked the warring parties to come to an agreement about it without a further hearing.
Mr Parker’s older son Eddie Parker, 33, was not involved in the row, nor a party to the case.