
Siblings battle over dad's £600,000 fortune as two left with just £250 in will
A woman is suing her sister after she was left just £250 in her father's £600,000 will with the other bagging almost every other penny.
Laxmikant Patel's will handed the £600,000 family home in Cambridge Road, Harrow, to his eldest daughter, Anju Patel, 58, while leaving younger daughter Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown, 52, and son Piyush Patel, 62, just £250 each. Anju claims their dad explained his drastic decision by saying he had come to 'mistrust' Mrs Stewart-Brown and that she and her brother had "failed in their sense of duty" as his children. He then left them tiny cash gifts, saying: "But as a father, I have not forgotten them".
The will is now under fierce challenge in court, with Mrs Stewart-Brown claiming her dad did not "know and approve" its contents, suggesting the will was "odd" as it was written in English, a language she claims he couldn't read properly.
She is seeking to uphold an earlier will, splitting the £600,000 estate almost equally between the three siblings, but Anju is fighting back and insisting her dad had every reason to all but disinherit the others.
He claimed the dad had branded his son Piyush a 'hugely controlling figure', alleging he had declined to scatter his dead mum's ashes in India, while also claiming Mrs Stewart-Brown - an inspector with the Care Quality Commission - 'apparently has a bad temper' and 'has taken massive advantage of her father'.
At the High Court, judge Deputy Master Jason Raeburn, heard Laxmikant Patel was a gentle and hard-working character who had carved out a new life for his family after migrating from Uganda in the early 1970s, working shifts at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham while his wife, Shardaben, ran a newsagent's.
A devoutly religious man, he attended the Swaminarayan temple in Neasden, north London, every day and he and his wife donated around £180,000 to the temple throughout their lives before his death at the age of 85 in October 2021.
In his previous will of October 2019 he had split his estate equally, except for an extra £50,000 bequest to Anju to balance out similar amounts he had previously handed to his other two children.
But Mrs Stewart-Brown's barrister, Timothy Sherwin, highlighted allegedly 'odd' circumstances in which Laxmikant made his last August 2021 will, soon after he was diagnosed with lung cancer.
He said Anju claimed that her dad gave instructions for his will to Vijaykant Patel, an associate of hers from their Hare Krishna temple who claimed to have also been a friend of her father's and came to visit him in his bed in London's Northwick Hospital.
'Two days after the diagnosis....Vijaykant says he visited the deceased at the hospital,' the barrister said. 'He says that he was a friend of the deceased and that he met Anju on the ward. That is very much disputed. However, it is common ground that he knew Anju from their Hare Krishna temple.
'Vijaykant goes on to say that the deceased asked him whether he knew anyone who could make a will, and that Vijaykant told the deceased that he could do so." He said Vijaykant claims to have taken notes of the meeting, in which Laxmikant expressed "revulsion" towards Mrs Stewart-Brown and Piyush, who he said were only "after his property," before declaring: "Everything goes to Anju."
The barrister continued: 'It is thus Vijaykant's evidence that he had a nearly-one-hour meeting with a man suffering from serious respiratory disease, and who had just been diagnosed with lung cancer, without incident or difficulty; and was given instructions which were completely contrary to the deceased's wishes as expressed in the earlier 2018 and 2019 wills.'
Vijaykant was not a qualified lawyer, said Mr Sherwin, also commenting: 'But there is much more to excite the court's suspicion - the purported execution of the 2021 will took place shortly after the deceased was admitted to hospital for lethargy, dizziness and coughing up blood. That will was in English, a language he could not properly read,' he said.
Mrs Stewart-Brown also claims her older sister drifted apart from the family after the age of 15 when she moved to India, later embracing the Hare Krishna creed in contrast to her family's Swaminarayan Hindu beliefs. It was not until around 2018 that Anju 'rejoined the family', she claims.
Given that the earlier will had planned for a mainly equal split of his estate, the shift to cutting out Bhavenetta and her brother two years later was inexplicable, argued the barrister.
'The purported reason for that change – namely Bhavenetta's and Piyush's alleged wrongdoing – will be analysed at trial. One would expect a major and incontrovertible change in circumstances, however, to explain so radical a departure and there is none," he added.
Claiming that Anju's relationship with her dad had been largely 'fractured' until 2018, the barrister continued: 'From 2019 onwards, however, Anju and (her husband) began to take much more involvement in the deceased's finances and personal affairs.
'They procured the 2019 will. They controlled access to the deceased, especially during the key period of August 2021. Further, they are Hare Krishna devotees, and they isolated the deceased from his previous dedication to the Swaminarayan faith, which he shared with his previous friends, and the other members of his family.'
But Anju, who returned to live in the UK in 1983, has denied being distanced from her parents, with her barrister, James Kane, claiming she always "shared a close and loving relationship" with them.
From the witness box, Anju herself also insisted that she had only ever been distanced from Mrs Stewart-Brown and that there was no conflict between her and her parents. 'I wasn't estranged from my family, I was with my sister. She chose to disconnect from me,' she told the judge.
In fact, her barrister said, their dad had become increasingly disillusioned with Mrs Stewart-Brown citing an alleged incident from 2018 in which she 'removed important documents from a locker or safe deposit box belonging to him, including the title deeds to the property, insurance documents and bank statements'.
'The documentary evidence makes plain that by - at the latest - October 2019, Laxmikant had formed a sharply negative view of both Piyush and Bhavenetta,' argued Mr Kane. By the time he drew up his 2019 will, he was already deeply disgruntled with Mrs Stewart-Brown and his son, claimed the barrister, citing his comments to the will writer at the time in which he said Bhavenetta 'has taken massive advantage of her father'.
'Although he did not act on this view immediately, after his diagnosis with cancer in August 2021, he decided to act," he said. "He asked his friend Vijaykant to draw up a will for him in favour of Anju, the child he felt had done most for him. 'Vijaykant did so and Laxmikant executed the will.
"The evidence of Vijaykant and the attesting witnesses is clear that Laxmikant knew perfectly well what the effect of executing the will would be and approved of it.' As executor of the estate Vijaykant Patel is defending the claim alongside Anju, while the two sisters' older brother, Piyush, who lives in Texas, is taking a neutral stance.
The trial is continuing.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Banning Palestine Action an 'abuse of power', High Court told
The group's co-founder Huda Ammori is making a bid to legally challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. On July 4, Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The case returned to the High Court in London on Monday, where lawyers for Ammori asked a judge to grant the green light for a full legal challenge against the decision to ban the group, saying it was an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. Raza Husain KC said: 'We say the proscription of Palestine Action is repugnant to the tradition of the common law and contrary to the [European Convention on Human Rights].' The barrister continued: 'The decision is so extreme as to render the UK an international outlier.' Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' 'The consequences are not just limited to arrest,' Husain later said, telling the court there was 'rampant uncertainty' in the aftermath of the ban. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also for Ammori, later said: 'The impacts [of proscription] have already been significant.' She continued: 'Dozens and dozens of people have been arrested for protesting, seated and mostly silent protest.' The barrister later told the court that Merseyside Police had bailed arrested protesters with a condition not to mention Palestine. 'People have been bailed to not mention Palestine?' Justice Chamberlain asked, with Ms Ni Ghralaigh replying: 'It is a condition of bail that they do not mention Palestine.' 'The Secretary of State has not distanced herself from any of these actions,' she continued, adding that Cooper had not described actions like this as an 'overreach'. The Home Office is defending the legal challenge. READ MORE: Three men arrested under Terrorism Act after national Palestine demo in Edinburgh Previously, Ben Watson, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. James Eadie, representing the department on Monday, said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. He said: 'Judicial review is, and has been accepted to be, a remedy of last resort and that is for very good and well-established reasons.' However, Husain told the court on Monday morning that the POAC was not 'convenient nor effective' in this case. He continued: 'It would be quite absurd to say that we should tolerate the consequences of the proscription […] even if it is unlawful, and just go to POAC. 'That is an absurd position.' In written submissions, Eadie (above) said that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. More than 100 people were arrested across the country during demonstrations this weekend protesting against the proscription, with protests held in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro on Saturday. Saturday's arrests brought the total number of people arrested since the ban came into force to more than 200, with more than 72 arrested across the UK last weekend and 29 the week before. The hearing before Justice Chamberlain concluded on Monday, with the judge saying he would give his decision on July 30.


Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Palestine Action terror ban made UK ‘international outlier', High Court told
Banning Palestine Action as a terror organisation had the hallmarks of a 'blatant abuse of power' and made the UK an 'international outlier', the High Court has heard. The group's co-founder Huda Ammori is making a bid to legally challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The case returned to the High Court in London on Monday, where lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to grant the green light for a full legal challenge against the decision to ban the group, saying it was an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. Raza Husain KC said: 'We say the proscription of Palestine Action is repugnant to the tradition of the common law and contrary to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights).' The barrister continued: 'The decision is so extreme as to render the UK an international outlier.' Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' 'The consequences are not just limited to arrest,' Mr Husain later said, telling the court there was 'rampant uncertainty' in the aftermath of the ban. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also for Ms Ammori, later said: 'The impacts (of proscription) have already been significant.' She continued: 'Dozens and dozens of people have been arrested for protesting, seated and mostly silent protest.' The barrister later told the court that Merseyside Police had bailed arrested protesters with a condition not to mention Palestine. 'People have been bailed to not mention Palestine?' Mr Justice Chamberlain asked, with Ms Ni Ghralaigh replying: 'It is a condition of bail that they do not mention Palestine.' 'The Secretary of State has not distanced herself from any of these actions,' she continued, adding that Ms Cooper had not described actions like this as an 'overreach'. The Home Office is defending the legal challenge. Previously, Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department on Monday, said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. He said: 'Judicial review is, and has been accepted to be, a remedy of last resort and that is for very good and well-established reasons.' However, Mr Husain told the court on Monday morning that the POAC was not 'convenient nor effective' in this case. He continued: 'It would be quite absurd to say that we should tolerate the consequences of the proscription… even if it is unlawful, and just go to POAC. 'That is an absurd position.' In written submissions, Sir James said that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. More than 100 people were arrested across the country during demonstrations this weekend protesting against the proscription, with protests held in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro on Saturday. Saturday's arrests brought the total number of people arrested since the ban came into force to more than 200, with more than 72 arrested across the UK last weekend and 29 the week before. The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain is due to conclude on Monday. A decision may be given at the end of the hearing, or in writing at a later date.


Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
BREAKING: Man who dumped bodies in suitcases by bridge after murdering couple learns fate
A man accused of killing a couple before decapitating them and dumping their bodies in a suitcase on Clifton Suspension Bridge has been found guilty. Yostin Andres Mosquera was charged with the murders of civil partners Albert Alfonso, 62, and Paul Longworth, 71, on July 8 last year in their flat in Scotts Road, Shepherd's Bush, west London. The court heard he had been staying with the couple before he 'decapitated and dismembered' them, froze parts of their remains and brought the rest in suitcases to Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol before stealing from them. Woolwich Crown Court heard Mr Alfonso was repeatedly stabbed, suffering injuries to his torso, face and neck, while Mr Longworth was attacked with a hammer to the back of his head and his skull shattered, jurors at Woolwich Crown Court have heard. During a retrial, jurors heard Mr Alfonso enjoyed 'extreme sex' and Mosquera, a Colombian national who did not speak English and whom he met online years earlier, was part of that world, jurors heard. Mr Alfonso was stabbed to death during a filmed session, with footage shown in court recording Mosquera singing and dancing in the aftermath of the attack. Mosquera's plan was to hurl the suitcases over the bridge to dispose of the remains after the 'calculated' and 'premeditated' killings, prosecutor Deanna Heer KC said. Mosquera admits killing Mr Alfonso but claims it was manslaughter by reason of loss of control. He has pleaded not guilty to murdering both men and insists Mr Alfonso killed Mr Longworth. He told the jury he feared for his own life and believed he was about to be killed when he stabbed Mr Alfonso. The defendant claims that he thought Mr Alfonso would do to him what he claims he had already done to Mr Longworth, he felt 'intimidated' and threats had been made to his family in Colombia. Mosquera's actions after stabbing Mr Alfonso, including singing and dancing, could have been an outburst as he had been overwhelmed by all that had happened to him, his defence counsel suggested. The court previously heard that computer searches for the phrase 'where on the head is a knock fatal?' were made on the day the two men died. It was suggested that Mosquera made repeated computer searches to find a freezer in the build-up to the killings. Many of the searches were in Spanish, some used Google translate and were also made while Mosquera was the only person in the house, the jury heard. He asked questions about delivery options and several searches were looking for a deep freezer, a chest freezer, a large indoor and outdoor freezer for sale. In the days before the killings the phrase 'hammer killer' was also tapped into the computer. The court also heard that Mosquera had first come to the UK from Colombia in June 2024 on the promise of English lessons and financial support from Mr Alfonso, whom he had met years earlier through webcam sex websites.