A mother and son are embroiled in a bitter legal battle over their family’s £10 million fortune.
Former girls’ school mistress Pamela Moore, 74, and her son Stephen, 50, are at war over their 65-acre Grade II listed Manor Farmhouse and estate, which was given to Stephen by his father Roger in his will.
At the High Court in September 2016, Judge Simon Monty ruled Stephen had toiled since childhood on the farm, which has been in the family for generations.
The 50-year-old was awarded the entire estate but his mother Pamela has now taken her fight to the Court of Appeal on the grounds the decision was ‘unfair’ on her daughter, mother-of-two Julie.
Pamela Moore, 74, (pictured outside the Court of Appeal in London) and her son Stephen, 50, are at war over their 65-acre Grade II listed Manor Farmhouse and estate
The 650-acre Manor Farm in Stapleford, near Salisbury, has been in the family for generations and was awarded to Stephen last year at the High Court
The Court of Appeal heard last Thursday how Pamela and her son had failed to get along since he was a youngster, and how she ‘favoured’ her daughter Julie.
Stephen Moore claims his father promised him the entire estate worth some £10m in total ‘would all be his one day.’
But his mother maintains it is ‘unfair’ that Julie and her family should not get a share of the family’s main asset.
The ‘difficult relationship’ between mother and son boiled over after Roger, 74, fell ill with dementia in 2009 and had to step back from the farming business.
And the situation worsened when Stephen used money from the farm partnership to buy himself a sports car.
His mother saw the car as ‘overly frivolous’, the court heard, and his frugal father warned him that the farm ‘was not a piggy bank’.
By 2012 lawyers told Stephen his parents had changed their wills. He owned half the farm but learned that his father had ‘disinherited’ him of the other half.
Roger’s share would go to Pamela, who intended to leave it to Julie and her husband, Andrew.
However last year, Judge Simon Monty ruled that Roger’s promises trumped his will and Stephen was entitled to all of the farming partnership.
Pamela, who is acting as her incapacitated husband’s legal representative and says the ‘upsetting family dispute’ has left them ‘bankrupt in all but name’, is now fighting that decision in the Court of Appeal.
Pamela has now taken her fight to the Court of Appeal on the grounds the decision was ‘unfair’ on her daughter, mother-of-two Julie (pictured with her family)
Married father-of-two Stephen, 50, ‘has worked on the farm since his childhood’, toiling up to 100 hours a week, and is also a rally car driver in his spare time, the court heard
Lord Justice Henderson heard Manor Farm has been in the Moore family for generations, expanding in scope and value as more land was purchased and more houses built on it over the decades.
Married father-of-two Stephen, 50, ‘has worked on the farm since his childhood’, toiling up to 100 hours a week, and is also a rally car driver in his spare time, the court heard.
The court heard he was the only family member of his generation who was ‘passionate about farming’ – Julie and his cousins never having shown a serious interest in agriculture – and, since his father fell ill, ‘now in effect runs the farm alone.’
In 2008 Roger’s brother and farming partner Geoffrey transferred his half share in the business, now worth £5 million, to Stephen for just £500,000 in recognition of his commitment to the land, the court was told.
Roger’s barrister, Christopher Pymont QC said family relations ‘dramatically deteriorated’ after that, with Pamela claiming her son had ‘become very full of himself with his new found role and wealth.’
And matters became even more toxic after Stephen learned in 2012 that his parents had earlier signed ‘mirror wills’, under which Pamela would inherit Roger’s half of the farm if he died before her.
Attacking Judge Monty’s decision at the Appeal Court last week, Mr Pymont said Pamela’s rights as Roger’s wife of over 50 years had been ‘overridden.’
At the Court of Appeal last week, Lord Justice Henderson granted permission to appeal against Judge Monty’s decision, but urged the warring mother and son to bury the hatchet
The QC added Stephen’s relationship with both his parents ‘totally changed’ after he became an equal partner in the farming business in 2008.
As well as taking exception to his sports car, his mother’s view was that he had ‘become very aggressive and bullying’ towards the rest of the family.
The court was told that Roger had full mental capacity when he changed his will in 2007, and the QC argued his understandable intention ‘was to protect Pamela’ if he died before her.
‘Pamela by dint of being married to and living with Roger, and looking after him as his health declined, had expectations at least as great as anything Stephen can claim,’ the barrister said.
Denying that Roger had made any legally binding promises to Stephen, Mr Pymont said he had, at most, ‘indicated’ his intention to leave him the farm.
Stephen had in any case ‘suffered no detriment’ from dedicating his life to the farm ‘because he unexpectedly acquired Geoffrey’s share’ at a massively reduced price of £500,000, argued the QC.
‘Pamela and Roger are now bankrupt in all but name as a result of Judge Monty’s order. All their assets have been expended on legal fees,’ he added.
Lord Justice Henderson granted permission to appeal against Judge Monty’s decision, but urged the warring mother and son to bury the hatchet.
‘Whatever unhappy experiences there may have been, it may still be possible in this case to reach an agreement, which is always preferable, especially in upsetting family disputes of this nature,’ he said.
Last year Judge Monty accepted evidence that Roger would ‘never have litigated against his own son’ had he still been in full possession of his faculties.
And Pamela had told the court: ‘If Stephen had behaved himself…he would have inherited the farm. It’s a very, very sad thing.’
The case will now return for a full hearing before the Appeal Court at a later date, yet to be set.