Battle of the toy tycoon heirs: Man loses epic authorized combat to cease his brother getting minimize of £14.5m inheritance after DNA outcomes revealed they’ve completely different fathers after mom’s one-night stand
The son of a toy tycoon lost a legal fight against his half-brother to try to stop him sharing in a £14.5million fortune – after DNA results revealed they have different fathers following their mother’s one-night stand.
Jonathan Marcus, 42, clashed with property solicitor Edward Marcus, 46, in a very ‘sensitive’ and public fight over whether multi-millionaire toymaker Stuart Marcus – a man they both grew up calling ‘Dad’ – was really Edward’s biological parent.
The younger sibling tried to cut Edward out of Stuart’s inheritance – saying the elder brother was the product of a one-night stand their mother Patricia Marcus, 81, had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while Mr Marcus was away on business.
Patricia had confided in Edward 14 years ago about him not being Stuart’s son but Jonathan only discovered this last year, London‘s High Court heard.
Although Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, when Jonathan learned of it he tried to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of a multi-million-pound family trust that had been established before Stuart’s death in 2020.
Edward Marcus, pictured outside the High Court in London, has been told to pay £150,000 legal costs after a paternity dispute regarding toy tycoon Stuart Marcus’s £14.5million fortune
Jonathan Marcus, 42, and mother Patricia Marcus, 81, are pictured outside London’s High Court after a hearing over the paternity dispute involving his half-brother Edward
Stuart Marcus was a toymaking tycoon who started out selling wooden dolls’ house kits above a small east London toy shop – he is pictured holding one of his art sets
Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim and, after three days in court, judge Master Matthew Marsh found that the evidence confirmed that Edward was indeed not Stuart’s son.
He highlighted the ‘cogent and reliable’ DNA test evidence, as well as compelling testimony from the two siblings’ mother Patricia.
He went on to find that the family trust set up by Stuart Marcus did not exclude Edward, however, as its terms would also count ‘non-biological’ offspring as beneficiaries.
And yet now Edward has been left with a £150,000 legal bill to pay after Master Marsh criticised him for bringing the fight over his paternity 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.
The court heard that Stuart Marcus died four years ago aged 86 – having created a multi-million-pound toy and board game empire – without any suspicion that Edward might not be his son.
Stuart – dubbed ‘a modest man with a big dream and a big heart’ by business colleagues – started out selling dolls’ houses above a small east London toy shop and ended up with a string of companies valued at £14.5million the year before he died.
He founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a niche in toys, board games and craft kits, later transferring the company HQ to Swaffham in Norfolk.
The late tycoon Stuart Marcus’s company grew from one room in east London to its current four-acre site at Swaffham, Norfolk (pictured)
Edward Marcus, pictured outside the High Court, had denied that DNA proved he was not Stuart’s natural child and argued that he would be entitled to share in the trust in any case
The disputed trust he set up holds shares in ‘valuable family companies’, the court heard, including a 43 percent stake in the Kitfix Swallow Group of firms, whose value was estimated at £14.5million in 2019.
Both brothers worked alongside Stuart as the brand grew and diversified into other fields such as property, with Jonathan heading up successful commercial operations in Germany.
But since 2016 relations between the two brothers had soured, climaxing in the clash which ultimately came before London’s High Court.
The terms of the trust decreed that it should only benefit ‘the children and remoter issue of the settlor and their spouses’, so eliminating ‘half-brother’ Edward if it were proved that Stuart was not his biological father, according to Jonathan.
But Edward argued that, even if the DNA evidence was accepted by the judge, he should be entitled to benefit from the trust as a stepson of Stuart Marcus.
Master Marsh termed the DNA evidence ‘cogent and reliable’ in showing that Jonathan and Edward are half-siblings, and found that ‘Edward and Jonathan do not share a biological father’.
He said he was satisfied that ‘Stuart was not Edward’s biological father,’ based on Patricia’s testimony.
But despite that, the judge went on to rule that the aim of Stuart’s trust was to benefit both Jonathan and Edward, whether or not they were his biological sons.
The company Kitfix offers products including ‘Sequin Art’ craft packs (pictured)
Patricia Marcus previously gave evidence confirming her belief that Edward is her former lover Sydney Glossop’s son, adding that he had also ‘accepted Edward as his son’
He concluded: ‘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.’
Last week, at a follow-up hearing, Edward’s barrister Matthew Mills asked the judge to order Jonathan to pay his brother’s £208,000 lawyers’ bill for fighting the case – arguing that Edward had been the ‘successful’ party.
Mr Mills said: ‘The question was whether Edward was a beneficiary and the answer to that question was yes.’
But the judge told him: ‘The core issues were paternity and construction of the settlement. You won on one and he won on the other.’
The judge added that he estimated that the paternity issue ‘took about 75 per cent of the trial time’ and went on to criticise Edward for continuing to argue that Stuart was his father and bring that issue to trial after being shown the DNA evidence.
He said: ‘Following the serving of the DNA evidence it was as clear as could be that what Patricia had said about his parenthood was going to be established on the balance of probabilities.
‘There was a trial (on that issue) that could have been avoided if Edward had adopted a more realistic position.’
Mr Mills argued that it was understandable that Edward did not drop his fight after seeing the DNA test, telling the judge: ‘It’s unreasonable that somebody facing such personal allegations should be expected to concede.’
One of the ‘Sequin Art’ craft packs sold by the late Stuart Marcus’s company Kitfix
The judge, however, concluded: ‘There were winners and losers in this case – the approach adopted by Edward has, on this issue of fact, been unrealistic.’
He went on to order Jonathan to pay 35 per cent of Edwards lawyers’ bills, excluding a success fee element, amounting to around £60,000 in total.
Edward must pay the rest of his £208,000 bill himself, while Jonathan must also pay his own legal costs which were not revealed in court.
The judge ordered Jonathan to make a £40,000 payment on account.
