Grandson wins £850k court docket battle after grandad demanded his marriage ceremony a refund

Sheffield businessman Robert Stokes paid over £850,000 towards his grandson Sebastian’s home and five-star wedding — but later sued to reclaim the cash, claiming it was a loan

View 2 Images

A man has triumphed in an £850,000 court battle after his 90-year-old grandfather sued to recover money he had lavished on his grandson’s home and five-star wedding.

Businessman Robert Stokes represents the fourth generation of family decorating supplies firm Stokes Tiles, which he transformed into a “substantial company”, now operating from a 100,000sq ft base in Sheffield.

He had anticipated that his grandson Sebastian, 31, would be the one to take control in the coming years and “indulged” him with enormous sums, a court heard. The grandfather stumped up over £720,000 towards Sebastian’s £1m home and tens of thousands more, including over £10,000 for flowers, for his luxury wedding to wife Olivia, 34, at five-star Grantley Hall, North Yorkshire.

But despite Robert being “guest of honour” at the wedding, the pair ended up locked in a court fight following a family rift, with the businessman then demanding his grandson sell his newly refurbished house in order to return the money, claiming it had been loaned, reports the Mirror.

Sebastian insisted the money had been given to him as “gifts” by his grandad, with his lawyers blaming “jealousy” from other parts of the family over his “favourite” status for stoking the feud.

The case reached the High Court in Leeds in March, with Judge Richard Carter now dismissing Robert’s claim to the cash, having found it was indeed a series of gifts to the grandchild he considered “the future” of the business. Despite having numerous grandchildren, Sebastian was Robert’s “favourite” and was being primed to take over the family business, which has been in their possession since 1895.

Rejecting his request for repayment, he also suggested it was “quite possible” that Robert had simply later “revisited his previous indulgence of Sebastian” and attempted to reclaim it.

Stokes Tiles originated from a decorating supplies company, established in 1895, before expanding in subsequent decades and branching into tile manufacturing and supply after Robert assumed control. It now operates from a 100,000sq ft warehouse in Rother Valley, near Sheffield, distributing tiles from around the globe, as well as its own.

The court heard that the relationship between grandfather and grandson had previously been amicable, with Sebastian leaving a career in banking to join the family enterprise. The alleged “loans” at the heart of the dispute amounted to approximately £850,000 and were made between 2020 and 2022, stated the judge in his judgement.

Over £720,000 of this sum was used towards Sebastian and Olivia’s acquisition of their six-bedroom detached stone-built residence, Fernleigh Mount, located in the affluent Dore suburb of Sheffield.

A significant portion of the remaining funds was spent on their wedding, including £25,000 paid directly to Grantley Hall – a country house and five-star hotel nestled within 38 acres of land in North Yorkshire – and more than £10,000 for flowers.

Robert launched his legal action after initially demanding that Sebastian sell his house, arguing that it had been their joint plan from the start. He claimed the purchase had been a shared investment between them and that their goal was to “flip” it for a profit, with Robert recouping his money.

In his written evidence to the court, he stated the first time he became suspicious that his grandson wasn’t planning to sell was when he discovered the extensive renovations being undertaken there. “I did not understand why so much money was being spent on the property in circumstances where the plan was to flip it,” he said in his witness statement.

“I was extremely distressed and upset. I felt like I had been taken advantage of and deceived by [Sebastian] who had taken advantage of me in a vulnerable state. Above all, I felt foolish for letting myself get drawn into his plans.”

Robert received backing in his case from his son Richard – Sebastian’s uncle – and Richard’s wife Helen, who the judge noted both believed that Sebastian had been exploiting his grandfather.

In her evidence, Helen accused Sebastian and Olivia of enjoying a “lavish lifestyle at Bob’s expense,” describing their wedding as “clearly a very expensive affair” for someone earning £40,000-a-year in a family business. However, the couple, both defendants in the case, countered these claims in court, insisting that the house was purchased as a “family home” for them and that additional funds were gifted to help cover their wedding expenses.

Their legal team suggested that Richard and Helen were “being vindictive towards Sebastian and jealous that he had been Robert’s favourite.”

Delivering his judgment, Judge Carter stated: “Sebastian and Olivia both gave unchallenged evidence that Robert was treated as the guest of honour at the wedding – presumably because he had funded it.

“Although Sebastian was questioned about the payments to Grantley Hall, and it was suggested that they were payments for him and Olivia to stay there, not for the wedding, it is clear from the evidence that payments related to the wedding.

“In the absence of any evidence to support the contention that the monies advanced by Robert to pay for Sebastian’s wedding were a loan and that Robert was expecting to be repaid, I dismiss his claim for repayment of those sums.

“I am satisfied that at the time that the advances were made, the relationship between Robert and Sebastian was still positive, and that it is more than likely that Robert would have been keen to help pay for the wedding.

“It is reasonable, therefore, to approach the rest of Robert’s case with considerable caution. If his claim can seek to recover from his grandson money which I have already found was given to him for his wedding, and for which he has not provided any good contemporaneous evidence, it is quite possible that he has revisited his previous indulgence of Sebastian and chosen to pursue this claim – with or without the encouragement of Richard and Helen.

“There was no agreement that the money would be repayable on demand or on the sale of Fernleigh Mount, nor was there an agreement that Fernleigh Mount was purchased to ‘flip’ in 2022 and that the profit would then go back to Robert.

“The claimant’s claim must therefore be dismissed as I am satisfied that the advance was a gift to Sebastian to purchase a family home for him and his family. I also dismiss the claim for the other payments – they too were gifts by Robert to Sebastian, predominantly to pay for his wedding.”

For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.