Son born from mother's secret affair could lose share of £14.5m family fortune as his half-brother bids to cut him out of late toy tycoon's will

Daily Mail​

5 hours ago

The son of a millionaire toy maker has re-launched his bid to boot his illegitimate half-brother out of the £14.5m family fortune.
Stuart Marcus built a multi-million pound games empire after beginning selling dolls' houses from a room above a small east London toy shop in the 1960s.
Shortly before he died, he put £14.5m worth of company shares into trust for his 'children': brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43.
But the family was thrown into turmoil amidst the revelation that Edward was not Stuart's son, but instead the product of an affair between his mother, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop.
Last year, a judge ruled that Stuart was not Edward's father, but said that the older half-sibling could still benefit from the £14.5m fortune on the basis that both brothers were meant to share it.
Both sons had worked in the company, even as Edward knew that he was not Stuart's son - a secret he was told by his mother, and that he kept from his half-brother from more than a decade.
Stuart - dubbed 'a modest man with a big dream and a big heart' by business colleagues - founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits.
The disputed trust he set up holds shares valued at £14.5m in the family companies, in which both brothers worked as the brand grew and diversified into other fields, with Jonathan heading up successful commercial operations in Germany.
But since 2016, relations between the two brothers soured, climaxing in the High Court clash, in which Jonathan claimed Edward should be excluded from benefiting under the trust.
Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand his mum Patricia Marcus, 82, had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while his dad was away on business.
That claim was based on Jonathan's discovery in 2023 of the 'monumental' news that Patricia had confided in Edward that he wasn't Stuart's son during a confidential chat 14 years ago.
Although Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, when Jonathan learned the news it triggered a court fight as he tried to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of the multimillion-pound family trust established before Stuart's death, aged 86, in 2020.
Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim, while his mum told the court herself that she had no doubt that Edward's real dad was Sydney, with whom she had a brief encounter over 40 years ago.
After three days in court last year, a judge, Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart's son.
'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; and not Edward and Jonathan provided they are in fact my biological sons,' he concluded.
He highlighted the 'cogent and reliable' DNA test evidence, as well as compelling testimony from the two half-siblings' own mother.
But he went on to find that the family trust does not exclude Edward, as in the context of the trust settlement, the word 'children' meant both boys.
Jonathan has since launched an appeal against the ruling that his half-brother was entitled to a share of the trust, which was heard at court this week with judgement to come at a later date.
This week, representing Jonathan in an appeal at the High Court, barrister Thomas Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit.
He insisted that the word 'children' in the trust document meant 'biological children' and so could not include Edward as he was not sired by Stuart.
Stuart's trust described the beneficiaries as his 'children,' which Mr Braithwaite insisted could only be taken in its ordinary meaning, 'biological children.'
'The word 'children' simply cannot be a placeholder for two specific people,' he told High Court judge, Sir Anthony Mann.
He added that there had been a 'common mistaken assumption' when the document was created that the boys were both Stuart's children.
'Everything else in the background needs to be seen through the prism of that mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart's biological son,' he said.
'What does children mean? It means biological children, of course.
'Stuart intended to benefit Edward, but he believed Edward was his biological child.
'The fact Edward was brought up in the family and the fact the purpose of this settlement was to benefit the people Stuart thought to be his children simply goes to establish that the interpretation of the word 'children' that should be adopted is the ordinary one.
'A reasonable person with all the background, including the mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart's biological child, is going to say it refers to biological children.'
But barrister Matthew Mills, for Edward, argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan's appeal.
'Jonathan is doing this to try to take away from Edward any rights in this multi-million pound family business,' he told the High Court judge.
'It is entirely appropriate, on the facts of this case, to define the class of beneficiaries as Edward and Jonathan - as the master did.
'Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child. Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement.'
Following last year's trial, Edward, now an in-house solicitor for a housing company, was left having to pay £150,000 towards his brother's legal bills after Master Marsh criticised him for bringing the paternity fight 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.
Following a half-day in court, Sir Anthony reserved his judgment on Jonathan's bid to exclude his brother from the family fortune until a later date.