Brothers and sister of £18million health drinks tycoon win bid to battle his Maltese lover for a share of his fortune

Daily Mail​

12-05-2025

The siblings of a multimillionaire British tycoon who made his fortune flogging health drinks have won the right to take his Maltese partner to court in a bitter battle over his £18million estate.
Alan Lorenz, a former London divorce lawyer who gave up his legal career in the 1980s to join controversial weight-loss brand Herbalife, died in 2021 aged 78, leaving his entire fortune to his much-younger partner Sheila Caruana.
But his brothers and sister – Robert Lorenz, 81, Anthony Lorenz, 77, and Vanessa Manasseh, 79 – insist he had promised them a share of the fortune and have now successfully appealed to have their claim reinstated after it was thrown out in the High Court.
The Court of Appeal ruling clears the way for a full trial, where the siblings will argue that Alan created a 'secret trust' shortly before his death, asking Sheila to 'do right' by his family and divide his fortune with them – something she now denies.
Charterhouse-educated Mr Lorenz built up an empire through Herbalife, the controversial US-founded direct-selling giant known for its nutritional shakes. He joined the firm in 1984, quickly climbing the ranks to become a senior member.
By the time of his death, Mr Lorenz had amassed a sprawling £18million estate, including a £4million Mayfair townhouse, a luxury £3.5million villa in Malta, £8.8million in cash and £2.1million in Herbalife-related assets.
He began his relationship with Sheila, now 59, around 2012. But with a 23-year age gap between them, the court heard that Mr Lorenz had been increasingly focused on tax planning in his later years.
Although earlier wills had left his siblings a share of his fortune, in 2020 he drew up a new one, leaving everything to Sheila.
The couple then entered a civil partnership shortly before his death, meaning she would not be liable for inheritance tax on his estate.
Robert, backed by his brother and sister, brought a claim to court arguing that Alan – who they said had 'a history of aggressive tax avoidance and indeed an abhorrence of paying tax' – had entered into the civil partnership and revised his will only as part of a scheme to shelter his wealth, with the understanding Sheila would later pass half on to his family.
They told judges he had assured them this would happen, and that he believed Sheila was '100 percent honourable' and would follow his wishes.
'Alan had a long-settled intention to benefit his siblings,' Robert said, claiming his brother was 'willing to enter into arrangements where the relevant authorities would or might be deceived as to the real purpose or effect of the transactions.'
A solicitors' note at the time reportedly stated that Sheila would 'sort out his family in due course', and that Alan had personally told each of his siblings that this was the plan.
Sheila, however, flatly denied any such understanding, saying: 'At no time did he say that there would be any restrictions on my use of the assets. Neither did he give me instructions to deal with the assets he was leaving in a particular way.'
The case was first brought to court in December 2023, when a judge refused Sheila's bid to have Robert's claim thrown out.
But it was dismissed last June in the High Court by Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, who ruled there was no realistic chance of proving a trust existed or of identifying which property it covered.
She described the siblings' claim as amounting to 'little more than submitting that something may turn up at trial.'
But last week, Lord Justice Zacaroli overturned the decision, ruling there was enough to warrant a full trial and allowing the siblings' claim to proceed.
He noted that the only evidence from Sheila so far was a 'short passage' in her statement claiming Alan had not given her any specific instructions about his wealth.
He continued: 'There has as yet been no disclosure from Sheila, there is scope for making requests for further information, and there may well be evidence from the authors of the attendance notes.
'If Sheila chooses to give no further evidence herself, then - while not underestimating the hurdle that Robert's case would need to overcome at trial - it may be possible to draw inferences from her failure to do so.
'If she does give evidence, then there is material in the contemporaneous documents which could realistically form the basis of cross-examination.'
He said there is a 'real prospect' that evidence at trial might 'fill the gaps' in the case as to what property the alleged trust was dealing with and who the beneficiaries are.
'The only person who can speak to what Alan actually said is Sheila, and there is at least a potential inconsistency between her current witness statement and the contemporaneous documents as to whether any instructions at all were given to her,' he said.
He overturned the decision to throw out Robert's claim, with Mr Justice Cobb and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith agreeing.
The case will now go forward for a full High Court trial unless settled beforehand.