Fishing lake tycoon’s widow loses bitter £1million inheritance battle together with her late husband’s youngsters after they had been left virtually all his fortune

The widow of a millionaire fishing lakes tycoon has lost a bitter court fight with her late husband’s children after he left them almost all his fortune in his will.

Robert Hinds, who was 74 when he died, ran successful coarse fishing ground Water End Fisheries in Bedfordshire, with his self-titled Robbie’s Lake being a hit with locals.

His second wife Amanda Louise Hinds, 67, was her fishery boss husband’s sole carer for the last six years of his life, after he battled multiple sclerosis for 30 years.

But following his death in 2020, Mrs Hinds was shocked to discover that her husband of about eight years had left her only 10 per cent of his £1million-plus fortune.

Instead, his two children from an earlier marriage, Samantha Gotzheim and Alex Hinds, were handed 80 per cent of their father’s cash between them, with the other 10 per cent going to grandchildren.

The will sparked a bitter court dispute, with Mrs Hinds suing her two stepchildren for a bigger share of the fortune, saying that as his carer in his final years she had a ‘moral claim’ to more.

But after a hearing last week, Mrs Hinds’ case was thrown out by a judge.

At Central London County Court, Recorder Graeme Robertson said Mrs Hinds could not prove on her evidence the money she was left by her husband was not ‘reasonable.’

The court heard Mr and Mrs Hinds had each been previously married and he was in the process of a divorce when they met in the mid to late 1980s.

Mrs Hinds’ barrister William Golightly told the judge that there had been a brief break in their relationship around 1990 but otherwise it had been a ‘long, loving relationship.’

They initially lived at Mrs Hinds’ home in Odell village, near Bedford, where they were married at the local church in February 2012.

However, they then moved to Mr Hinds’ bungalow at the Water End in 2015 when he became more dependent on care, due to his disability.

Mrs Hinds had been ‘meaningfully involved’ in Mr Hinds’ business Water End Fisheries, a family-run day ticket coarse fishing site in the heart of rural Bedfordshire, her barrister said.

The popular fishing spot offered three one-acre canals stocked with carp, rudd, roach, tench, perch, bream, chubb, gudgeon and dace.

She had also run the household, as well as ‘contributing’ to the welfare of his family, he said.

However, following his death, ‘relations soured’ with her stepchildren, Samantha, 47, who runs a chalet business in the French Alps, and Alex, who has a fencing firm in Bedfordshire.

Under his final will, made in 2017, Mr Hinds left his two children 40 per cent each of his fortune, Mrs Hinds 10 per cent and their grandchildren 10 per cent between them.

Claiming she had not been left ‘reasonable financial provision’ as his wife, she then lodged an application under the Inheritance Act 1975.

But, having filed her claim outside the six-month time limit after probate was granted in September 2021, she had to come to court to ask for permission to make her claim.

Mr Golightly argued that the strength of her claim was an important factor in deciding whether it should be allowed to go to trial.

As his spouse, what she might have got in a divorce had to be considered, he said, and she could have been awarded half the money if they had split.

‘The court has to have regard to the age of the claimant and the duration of the marriage,’ he told the judge.

‘Here, we have a marriage of eight years which should be regarded in the context of a long relationship.’

Mr Hinds had also owed ‘obligations’ to his wife in circumstances where even her stepchildren accepted she had been his ‘long-term sole carer’ for his final six years.

‘The parties agree that the claimant was the deceased’s sole carer for the last six years of his life, he having been diagnosed with MS around 1990,’ said the barrister.

‘There is a moral claim for a wider distribution to this claimant.’

Arguing that time should be extended to let her claim proceed to trial, he said Mrs Hinds had been under the impression she had 12 months, not six, to lodge a claim.

It was only when her lawyers learned a property owned by Mr Hinds had been sold that ‘alarm bells started ringing’ that probate had been granted and the ‘clock started ticking’ for her to make her claim.

He said Mrs Hinds had an arguable claim for more as his wife and because she has very limited income, living off benefits in a housing association property.

‘We would be looking for a 50 per cent distribution so she can buy her housing association house for £300,000, as well as a pot of money to live off,’ he said.

There was also enough money in the estate – formed of his former property, his farm and the fishery – for his children and grandchildren to still get a sizeable inheritance.

But for Mr Hinds’ children, barrister Christopher Jones criticised her evidence about her financial needs.

‘What my lay clients were told was that the claimant had no income at all,’ he said.

‘We are now told she is in receipt of state benefits and is running at a loss effectively, but there is no explanation given of how that shortfall is being met.

‘The claimant should have got her house in order when the proceedings were issued and provided financial information long ago.’

Giving judgment, Recorder Robertson said he would take into account Mrs Hinds’ current circumstances and the strength and length of the relationship she had with her husband.

‘She is elderly and of pensionable age, the marriage lasted eight years and six of those years were spent by the claimant in caring for the deceased when he needed it,’ he said.

‘I also bear in mind that it is said in the claimant’s evidence that she made a contribution to the welfare of the family of the deceased.’

But he said her evidence about her financial needs was ‘unsatisfactory’ and he could not on that basis find that a 10 per cent share of the £1million was not reasonable.

‘She is likely to receive a distribution of £100,000-odd, which on its face could enable her to meet her financial needs for the foreseeable future,’ he said.

‘It seems to me that she does have financial resources and her needs met for the future.’

He also said that, on top of not having a ‘realistic prospect of success’ in her claim, she had not convinced him to extend time for it to go forward to a full trial anyway.

‘I don’t consider that the claimant did act promptly in the circumstances when she applied for an extension of time,’ he said.

‘She was aware of the grant of probate. She was told about it and she doesn’t explain why she thought she had 12 months, rather than six, to bring a claim.

‘Overall, I consider the explanation for the delay to be unsatisfactory.

‘Considering all the factors in the round, I have come to the conclusion that this is not a case where I should grant permission to extend time.

‘The application to do so is consequently dismissed.’

Having dismissed her bid in its entirety, the judge ordered Mrs Hinds to pay her stepchildren’s £26,000 lawyers’ bills for fighting the case.