'Noise sensitive' woman blows her entire £100,000 inheritance in 'sad, wasteful and expensive' court fight with her sisters over their mother's £420,000 home

Daily Mail​

09-07-2025

A 'noise sensitive' woman who took her sisters to court in a bid to keep their late mother's home for herself has been warned she has likely blown her entire £100,000-plus inheritance on a 'wasteful' legal fight.
Sharon Duggan, 49, was left a third of the share of her mother's £420,000 home, but dramatically sparked a bitter inheritance battle after claiming she needed the house for her and her two emotional support dogs.
The 'hyper-vigilant' and sound sensitive' woman sued her sisters, Ann and Brenda Duggan, claiming she needed their mother's house because she could not bear living in a noisy flat.
However, her case was kicked out at Central London County Court last month - and she now faces having to pay all of the lawyers' bills for the 'extremely wasteful and expensive' dispute.
Ordering her to stump up for the costs - yet to be calculated exactly - Judge Alan Johns KC said the 'grim reality' was that it would be 'highly likely' to wipe out the share of her mother's estate she is rightfully due.
'This marks a sad end to a sad case,' he said. 'It is likely that Sharon will be left with nothing of the £100,000 or more that otherwise would have been her inheritance.
'That is the heavy price to be paid by her for pursuing this litigation to trial.'
The court heard how Agnes Duggan left her house, thought to be worth about £420,000, to be split equally between her three daughters, former NHS worker Sharon, alternative therapist Brenda, 55, and oldest sister Ann, 60.
But Sharon - who said she 'is dyslexic and suffers from a variety of health issues, including chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder (and) also has long Covid' - claimed the house for herself and her therapeutic rescue dogs.
She sued her sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming 'reasonable provision' above her one-third share of her mother's fortune.
She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean she should get at least a life interest in the property in Lyndhurst Close, Crawley.
She insisted that her needs outweighed her sisters' right to get the inheritance they are due, also arguing that it would be hard to find alternative accommodation for both her and her two dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'.
Sharon claimed she 'sacrificed' her career to move in and help out her mother in 2014, also claiming her mother was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her.
As well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, she claimed to have spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady.
In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that 'psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again,' adding: 'She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep.
'She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult.'
In the witness box, she insisted that downsizing to a flat would be too much for her, telling the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive.'
She argued she should be allowed to buy out her sisters for a small sum to be raised by a mortgage or alternatively the right to stay there for life.
Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda - who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics - fought the case, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a flat.
Giving judgment last month, Judge Johns accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues,' but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as 'suitable' accommodation for her.
Ruling against Sharon, Judge Johns said: 'It's my judgment that there has been no failure to make reasonable financial provision for her.
'I am not satisfied there was any promise that the property would be Sharon's - and certainly not a promise that Sharon was confident would be carried out.
'This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of. Essentially, provision was made for Sharon by giving her one third of the estate.'
The decision left all three sisters due to inherit assets worth about £100,000 from their mother after estate costs, but Judge Johns last week said Sharon's share would almost definitely now be wiped out.
Returning to court to decide who should pay the costs of the trial, lawyers for Brenda and for their mother's estate argued that neither should be left out of pocket when it was Sharon who brought the case.
Brenda's barrister, Alex Findlay, told the judge that offers had been made to Sharon pre-trial which would have seen her receive extra money, but she had refused.
'This has been extremely wasteful and expensive litigation, to say nothing of the stress,' he said.
Giving judgment, Judge Johns said: 'It is submitted that Sharon should not be allowed to walk away without any costs order being made - I agree.'
He ordered that she pay the lawyers' bills of both Brenda and their mother's estate, with the sums to be assessed at a later date, but estimated at over the £100,000-plus she is due to inherit.
'The grim reality of this litigation is likely to be that all of Sharon's share will be burned up by the costs, so she will end up with nothing,' he said.