Farmer’s son slams brother for attempting to chop him out of £10m property

A strawberry farmer’s son today slammed his ‘greedy’ brother for trying to disinherit him in a bitter fight over the family’s £10million estate.

Adrian Winter dedicated his life to growing strawberries on the family’s multimillion farm on the promise from his father that one day it would be shared equally between him and his two brothers.

But before his father passed away, there was a family feud and in 2015 he changed his will to leave the entire estate in Bridgwater, Somerset, to Adrian’s brother Philip, 56.

The row escalated to such an extent that Adrian and his other brother Richard sued Phil for their share.

Initially Adrian and Richard, 58, were awarded £1million each from a High Court judge – but when Phil unsuccessfully appealed that decision, the brothers were each awarded an extra £500,000.

Speaking today from his farmhouse, builder Adrian, 55, branded Philip ‘a greedy, lying, fat f***er who got what he deserved’ and vowed never to speak to him again.

He told MailOnline: ‘It was the right verdict. Richard and I said from the start we couldn’t lose because it was so black and white.

‘Philip won’t be very happy but at the end of the day those promises were made and he knew they were made.

‘The old boy said to us right at the start when we left school ‘come and work for me and it will all be split three ways’. We were all born there and as soon as we could walk we were working there.

‘We don’t know why he changed his mind, we think he was manipulated.

‘At mediation we told him he could have the old boy’s personal wealth as he obviously didn’t like us much but we’d split the farm, his words were ‘no, he’s left it to me and I’m having it’.

‘That’s why he’s dead to me now.

‘The judge says he’s got to pay 95 per cent of legal fees plus interest which will be substantial.’

Adrian said the strawberry business has since shut down with the land sold for housing.

Adrian said they were forced to make the decision after Philip and Albert’s wasteful spending and bad business decisions.

He said: ‘I’m glad it’s closed now, Philip and the old boy just wasted a load of money. They did it so badly we shut them down and they couldn’t take it that it was just a business decision.

‘What they don’t understand is if we didn’t do what we did then none of us would have anything. They would have wasted everything. My brother is braindead.’

‘It was so bad in meetings all we did was fight and argue and scrap about stuff that was so basic.

‘If mum was here she would’ve been devastated, she would have been waiting for him with a frying pan.’

Philip had fought the case, arguing his brothers did not suffer detriment by staying on the farm because they could not show they would have done better in life elsewhere, having each become millionaires in the family business.

But Lord Justice Newey ruled against Philip, saying: ‘Where a claimant has devoted his working life to a particular course in reliance on an assurance, it may be proper for the court to find detriment even if the claimant has not shown that he would otherwise have been likely to take a specific alternative course which would probably have been more beneficial.’

He dismissed the appeal by Philip against an earlier High Court ruling by Mr Justice Zacaroli which awarded his brothers the £1m share.

Philip declined to comment when approached by MailOnline.

The court previously heard that Albert and his wife Brenda were married in 1964 and bought the main family farm, Bower Farm, near Bridgwater, Somerset, and ran a market garden business together as they raised their family.

Later, after their sons joined the business, the beneficial interest in the farm was transferred to the farm partnership in which the family members all had one-fifth shares in 2000.

Brenda died in 2001 and Albert and the three sons carried on the farm for over a decade, with the three sons helping turn it into a £10million business.

Following their falling out, Albert changed his will in 2015, writing out Richard and Adrian and leaving his estate – including his share of the business – to Philip.

After a series of transactions during his and his wife’s lifetimes and the effect of her will, his share of the business is now worth about £1.5million, with his three sons owning the rest.

Richard and Adrian, suing in the High Court last year, argued it was ‘unconscionable’ for Albert not to have split his £1.5million share equally, because all the sons had dedicated their lives to the farm, relying on his promise of equality.

Describing the sons’ childhood sacrifices, Mr Justice Zacaroli said that all three worked in the business full time after leaving school, ‘devoting their lives to the family business,’ with Richard abandoning plans to join the Marines.

‘I am satisfied that at least part of the motivation for remaining on the farm was Albert’s attitude that, if Richard chose the Marines, then he would be cut off from the family, whereas, if he stayed and committed to building the business, he could expect to share in it,’ he added.

Adrian had also abandoned other life plans to dedicate himself to the family business, the judge said.

The only portion of his estate which Albert was free to leave to whomever he chose was that part outside the business, amounting to around £230,000, Richard and Adrian claimed.

Lawyers for middle brother Philip argued that neither of his brothers had in fact suffered ‘detriment,’ because working in the highly successful strawberry business had made them both millionaires.

But Mr Justice Zacaroli, ruling in favour of Richard and Adrian, said: ‘It is not possible to put a money value on the unquantifiable detriment of committing an entire working life to a family business, giving up the chance to build an alternative life elsewhere.’

Although Richard would probably not have made as much money in the military or Adrian as a builder, the judge said it was impossible to know what they might have done over 40 years if they had not worked in the family business.

He said it was ‘unconscionable’ for their dad Albert to change his will as he did in 2015, given the promises he had made of equal shares of the business.

Appealing earlier this month, Philip’s barrister Alex Troup KC argued that Richard and Adrian could not show an ‘alternative world’ in which they would have been better off if they had left the farm.

Both had ‘benefitted very substantially from his involvement with the family business,’ he continued, adding that each had benefitted to the tune of around £2million.

Had Richard instead joined the Royal Marines or Adrian worked as a builder, they would not have ended up richer, he told appeal judges Lady Justice Falk, Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Newey.

‘Simply committing one’s life to the farm doesn’t create detriment…they need to show on the evidence that there is an alternative world where they were better off,’ he said.

Lady Justice Falk, however, said the case was not just about money, commenting: ‘They would not be financially better off but…it’s not a pure financial test’.

Dismissing Philip’s appeal, Lord Justice Newey said Mr Justice Zacaroli was entitled to find that, by devoting their lives to the business, Richard and Adrian had ‘suffered detriment outweighing the financial benefits which they had derived from working in the family business.’

He said that was so even when Richard and Adrian had not been able to show a ‘specific alternative’ in life which would have been more beneficial to them.

‘Where…a claimant has made a life-changing choice and over many years undertaken work in reliance on an assurance, the court will probably be prepared to treat loss of opportunity to lead a different life as itself detrimental without requiring the claimant to prove, or itself trying to determine, quite what the claimant would have done and with what consequences,’ he said.

‘It was not unreasonable for the judge to conclude that there was the requisite detriment on the facts of the present case.

‘The judge plainly considered Richard and Adrian to have made life-changing choices on the strength of their father’s assurances.

‘On the judge’s findings, Richard and Adrian ‘devoted their working lives, from before they left school until Albert’s death in 2017, to working in the family business’.

‘Richard and Adrian were required ‘to work long hours, for low wages’, ‘with profits being ploughed back into the business’ and Richard and Adrian ‘would have had other options open to them’.

‘In all the circumstances, the judge arrived at a conclusion which was open to him.

‘Whether or not a different judge could have taken a different view is neither here nor there.’

Philip’s appeal was dismissed.