'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
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Parents, beware the devastating consequences of measles
After reading the letters about vaccine misinformation and hesitancy (Measles surge shows why vaccinations are crucial, 20 July), I felt I must write to tell you of one unrecognised cause of the drop in vaccine uptake: when I worked as a community school nursing sister in the 1980s, with 11 state schools and a number of private schools that took up the vaccine service, we had 98% uptake of vaccines in the school setting. This was due to the system of sending letters home to parents requesting their consent and following up by phone, if necessary, by the school office staff. The children came in class batches. Then the local health authority decided that this service should be discontinued and parents were invited to take their child to the local GP surgery for their vaccinations. The uptake plummeted to less than 40% of eligible children due to children not taking the letters home, or parents forgetting or losing the letter – or being unable to take time off to take their child to the surgery. When I asked the GPs at the local health centre what the uptake for the cohort of eligible children was, they looked at their records and were surprised, but reluctant to do anything about it. Health visitors were responsible for, and very successful in, advising new mothers when vaccines were due, where to get them and encouraging uptake. It should be compulsory for all vaccines for preschool children (which includes measles) to be done before a child is admitted to school, as in many other countries. As a midwife, I saw a baby born to a mother who had contact with rubella in early pregnancy. The little girl was born with a body rash, had bilateral cataracts and was totally deaf. She was was very ill. Schools for deaf children may return again for these children if vaccination is not taken up for whatever reason. How StephensLiphook, Hampshire I contracted measles just before the NHS was established. With it came serious ear infections, burst eardrums, etc. There were no vaccines, just ear drops. Over the years the infections and operations continued and now, aged 82, I have no hearing with complications. I beg people to think seriously about vaccination. The consequences of measles can sometimes be devastating. Jean JacksonSeer Green, Buckinghamshire I caught measles aged six in 1953, at a time when parents hoped their children would get it (and chicken pox and mumps) so as to gain immunity. My dad, aged 54, had not had measles as a boy, caught it from me and nearly died. The risk of not vaccinating children is not just to WallLondon
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Nurses set to reject pay offer as further strike action looms
Nurses will this week overwhelmingly reject their pay deal, raising the prospect that they will join junior doctors on strike. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) will warn ministers that they must come back to the table over the summer to avoid a formal strike ballot in the autumn and additional unrest that will further set back NHS recovery. However, public support for doctors' strikes appears to be waning, as ministers accuse them of holding the country to ransom and hospitals report fewer staff joining picket lines. Resident doctors, formerly known junior doctors, are in a five-day walkout after rejecting a 5.4 per cent pay rise, which came after a 22 per cent increase last year. Polling for The Times found that 55 per cent of voters oppose the strike, up from 49 per cent earlier this month, while 32 per cent support it, down four points from the second week of July before the walkouts began. Tom Dolphin, the head of the British Medical Association (BMA), insisted that doctors 'don't want to be on strike', but said the walkouts were necessary because doctors were 'undervalued' and were 'leaving the NHS in large numbers'. He said that pay had to be 'enough to recruit and retain the best doctors'. Ministers have refused to reopen pay talks and negotiations on working conditions collapsed in acrimony last week as ministers accused the BMA of acting in bad faith, while the union said the government had failed to make any concrete offers. • NHS patients told to brace for strikes until Christmas and beyond The BMA is holding out for a full return to 2008 levels of pay and Dolphin said salaries 'reflect the responsibility of these doctors' who were making 'life and death decisions'. He said: 'Even nurses who've had a pretty bad time [are] not as badly off as doctors in terms of lost pay.' Nurses, however, are furious that their 3.6 per cent pay rise this year was lower than doctors' increases for the second year in a row. The RCN is holding an indicative vote on the pay award, which closed on Sunday. The vote is understood to show 'overwhelming' rejection of a deal, with turnout likely to be well over the 50 per cent threshold that would be needed for industrial action. The union is due to announce final results later this week with a call for ministers to return to the table. While the BMA is adamant that headline pay must rise, nurses are thought to be more open to talks on wider pay structures. The RCN has repeatedly complained that nurses can remain on the lowest rung of the NHS pay scale for decades and is expected to press ministers for reforms that would allow them to move up the scale as they gain experience. If no progress is made, a formal strike ballot is likely to be launched in the autumn. A spokesman for the union said: 'The results will be announced to our members later this week. As the largest part of the NHS workforce, nursing staff do not feel valued and the government must urgently begin to turn that around.' It came after ambulance and other hospital staff in the GMB Union voted to reject the 3.6 per cent offer last week, with strike action now being considered. The BMA consultants' committee is also holding an indicative vote over a 4 per cent pay deal it described an 'insult' to senior doctors. Dolphin said the vote was 'a testing of the waters to see where people are', but warned: 'We're certainly very aware already, even before we've done this ballot, the consultants are also very much down on their pay [compared with 2008].' He told Sky News he did not recognise reports that doctors were being paid £6,000 a shift to cover for strikes, but said overtime rates were 'whatever they can manage to negotiate with their employer'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Wes Streeting ‘thought he had struck deal to halt strike by doctors'
Wes Streeting thought he had struck a deal with resident doctors to stop a five-day strike in England, only for the British Medical Association to then reject it, sources have claimed. The health secretary believed he had secured a verbal agreement with the co-chairs of the BMA's resident doctors committee for a deal that involved progress on tackling five non-pay issues. Whitehall sources say Ross Nieuwoudt and Melissa Ryan decided the agreement made during face-to-face talks last Tuesday was enough for the suspension of the strike, which started on Friday. The deal would have involved resident doctors – formerly junior doctors – getting access to hot meals when working overnight, having some exam fees paid, receiving funding for equipment such as stethoscopes and getting mess rooms and changes to the way their postgraduate training was organised. But when Nieuwoudt and Ryan relayed the potential deal to the full committee, they were told they could not approve it because it did not address the BMA's demand that resident doctors receive a 29% pay rise over the next few years. 'They were told by the committee that they could only talk about pay and none of this soft stuff matters. Wes was furious. They had come incredibly close to a deal,' a source said. Resident doctors in England receive basic pay of between £38,831 and £73,992, with extra payments worth up to 15% of their salaries for working at weekends. The failure to reach a deal underlines the gulf between the BMA and Streeting. He has refused to reopen negotiations over the 5.4% salary increase he has given resident doctors this year. But the union is adamant it will call off industrial action only if he agrees to talk money. The BMA denied that it was responsible for the failure to strike a deal and blamed Streeting. A spokesperson said: 'We cannot be clearer: it was the government that ended the talks. 'Resident doctors do not want to strike. However, we have been compelled to take action because Mr Streeting's ultimatum, which demanded we call off strikes in exchange for nothing more than further talks was simply not acceptable. 'We want to continue our negotiations with Mr Streeting and strongly urge him to get back around the table with a serious proposal, rather than a handful of platitudes.' NHS bosses warn the strikes could 'snowball' and even continue into next year. They fear that nurses, consultant doctors and other NHS staff might stage strikes too. Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive of NHS England, told the Sunday Times: 'We know that continued disruption over the coming months could see a snowball effect for patients and for staff. 'We've seen that before and it has take a huge effort over the last year to build momentum back up on reducing waiting lists and times.' His deputy, David Probert, who is also chief executive of University College London hospitals trust, told the same paper: 'This could be a marathon. We could be doing this until Christmas or maybe beyond.' The BMA's 55,000 resident doctor members have a legal mandate to take strike action for six months, until 6 January. Kemi Badenoch has pledged to outlaw strikes by doctors, bringing them into line with the police and army, if she becomes prime minister. 'Doctors hold lives in their hands. No one should lose critical healthcare because of strikes but that's what's happening now', the opposition leader posted on X on Sunday. 'That's why a Conservative government led by me would ban doctors' strikes, just like we do the army and police.'
