Latest news with #JonathanMarcus
The Sun
11-07-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Secret lovechild WINS bid to keep half of millionaire toymaker dad's £14.5m fortune – after mum's secret affair revealed
A SECRET lovechild has won the right to pocket half of a toymaking tycoon's £14.5million fortune, after his mum's secret affair was revealed. Stuart Marcus built a multi-million pound games empire after selling dolls' houses from a room above a small East London toy shop in the 1960s. 5 5 Shortly before he died, he put £14.5m worth of company shares into trust for his "children," with brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, both benefiting. But the family was thrown into turmoil after the revelation that Edward was not Stuart's son, but instead the product of an affair between his mum, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop. Last year, a judge ruled that Stuart was not Edward's dad, but said that Edward could still benefit from the £14.5m fortune on the basis that both brothers were intended to share. The case returned to court last month, with lawyers for Jonathan arguing that it was wrong to let solicitor Edward share the wealth when he was not Stuart's biological son. But Jonathan's case was thrown out this week after High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann ruled that, because Stuart had thought Edward was his true son and intended him to benefit, he should do so. "Stuart chose to use a word - 'children' - which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly," he said. "This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world - Stuart's real world in particular - Edward was Stuart's child." Stuart Marcus - dubbed "a modest man with a big dream" by business colleagues - founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits, later transferring the company HQ to Swaffham, Norfolk. 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 such as property. But since 2016, relations between the two brothers soured, climaxing in the court clash, in which Jonathan claimed Edward should be excluded from benefiting under the trust. Belgium's ex King Albert, 84, finally submits DNA test in decades-long paternity claim by 'lovechild' woman, 51 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. From the witness box, Edward told how his mum suddenly spilled the revelation about her affair and his paternity during a meeting at his home in 2010. He said he then searched online for anything about his mystery dad, finally tracking him down to a retirement home near Birmingham, which he and his mum visited in order to meet Sydney. Once there, he witnessed the pair of them "cuddling," said Edward, telling the court: "I saw her sit on the bed and cuddle him and I was shocked to see her behaving that way because it wasn't the way I saw her behave with my father." However, he said he began to harbour doubts about his mum's news and claimed she went back on her account in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his dad. After three days in court last year, a judge, Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart's son. 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. "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. Appealing at the High Court, Jonathan's barrister Thomas Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit. 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 said, adding that there had been a "common mistaken assumption" when the document was created that the boys were both Stuart's children. "What does children mean? It means biological children, of course. Stuart intended to benefit Edward, but he believed Edward was his biological child." For Edward, barrister Matthew Mills argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan's appeal. "Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child," he said. "Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement." Giving judgment, dismissing Jonathan's appeal and clearing the way for Edward to share in the trust, Sir Anthony said Stuart had considered both boys to be his biological sons and treated them as such. "He would naturally have described them as his biological children and as far as he and everyone else was concerned - apart from his wife and possibly Edward's father - that is exactly what they were, though it is his personal view which is important for these purposes," he continued. "In that context Stuart chose to use a word - 'children' - which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly. "This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world - Stuart's real world in particular - Edward was Stuart's child. "Edward was treated for practical, familial and all other purposes as a biological child, nothwithstanding the true fact that he was not. "Stuart's intention is exactly the intended the word to include Edward. "I agree fully with the master in this conclusion, with the result that Edward is one of the settlor's 'children' on the true construction of the 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 element of the case 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. However, after Sir Anthony's decision, he will stand to benefit under the £14.5m trust. 5 5
Daily Mail
11-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Secret lovechild wins bid to keep half of multi-millionaire toy tycoon's £14.5million fortune after brother tried to disinherit him when he learned of mother's affair
A lovechild has won his bid to keep half of a toy tycoon's fortune after his half-brother tried to disinherit him when he learned he was the product of a secret affair. Stuart Marcus built a multi-million pound games empire after starting off selling dolls from a small east London toy shop in the 1960s. Before he died in 2020 aged 86, he put £14.5million worth of company shares into a trust for Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, who he believed were his two sons. However, in 2010, Stuart's wife Patricia told Edward that his biological father was actually Sydney Glossop, a partner in a law firm in Norwich. Jonathan only discovered this news in 2023. His relations with Edward had soured by this point and he began a bid to disinherit him. Last year, a judge ruled that Edward was not Stuart's son, but he was still entitled to a share of his fortune because this is what Stuart had intended. This decision was challenged by Jonathan, whose lawyers argued that only he - as the sole biological son - was entitled to his father's wealth. However, his case was thrown out this week by High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann. 'Stuart chose to use a word - ''children'' - which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly,' the judge said. 'This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world - Stuart's real world in particular - Edward was Stuart's child.' Stuart Marcus - dubbed 'a modest man with a big dream' by colleagues - founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits, later transferring the company HQ to Swaffham in Norfolk. The disputed trust he set up holds shares valued at £14.5million in the family companies, in which both brothers worked as the brand grew and diversified into other fields, such as property. But since 2016, relations between the half-siblings soured, climaxing in the court clash. Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand that his mother Patricia had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while his father was away on business. That claim was based on Jonathan's discovery in 2023 of the 'monumental' news that Patricia, now 82, had confided in Edward that he was not Stuart's son during a confidential chat 14 years ago. Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, and when Jonathan learned the news he sought to have his half-brother disinherited. Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim, while his mother told the court herself that she had no doubt that Edward's real father was Sydney, with whom she had a brief encounter over 40 years ago. From the witness box, Edward told how his mother suddenly spilled the revelation about her affair and his paternity during a meeting at his home in 2010. He said he then searched online for anything about his mystery father, finally tracking him down to a retirement home near Birmingham, which he and his mum visited in order to meet Sydney. Edward said he watched his mother and Sydney 'cuddling' when they were reunited. 'I saw her sit on the bed and cuddle him and I was shocked to see her behaving that way because it wasn't the way I saw her behave with my father,' he said. However, he said he began to harbour doubts about his mother's news and claimed she went back on her account in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his father. But after three days in court last year, a judge, Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart's son. 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. '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. Appealing at the High Court, Jonathan's barrister Thomas Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit. 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 said, adding that there had been a 'common mistaken assumption' when the document was created that the boys were both Stuart's children. 'What does children mean? It means biological children, of course. Stuart intended to benefit Edward, but he believed Edward was his biological child.' For Edward, barrister Matthew Mills argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan's appeal. 'Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child,' he said. 'Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement.' Giving judgment, dismissing Jonathan's appeal and clearing the way for Edward to share in the trust, Sir Anthony said Stuart had considered both boys to be his biological sons and treated them as such. 'He would naturally have described them as his biological children and as far as he and everyone else was concerned - apart from his wife and possibly Edward's father - that is exactly what they were, though it is his personal view which is important for these purposes,' he continued. 'In that context Stuart chose to use a word - 'children' - which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly. 'This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world - Stuart's real world in particular - Edward was Stuart's child. 'Edward was treated for practical, familial and all other purposes as a biological child, nothwithstanding the true fact that he was not. 'Stuart's intention is exactly the intended the word to include Edward. 'I agree fully with the master in this conclusion, with the result that Edward is one of the settlor's 'children' on the true construction of the settlement.
Telegraph
11-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Lovechild wins right to £14m fortune after legal battle with brother
The son of a toy-making tycoon has won the right to half of his family's £14.5 million family fortune after his half brother used DNA testing in a bid to disinherit him. Brothers Edward and Jonathan Marcus were locked in a legal battle following the revelation that Edward was the result of an affair between his mother, Patricia, and lawyer Sydney Glossop. Jonathan's lawyers argued that it was wrong to let Edward, a solicitor, share the inheritance put aside by their father Stuart Marcus when he was not his biological son. But Jonathan's case was thrown out this week after High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann ruled that, because Stuart had thought Edward was his true son and intended him to benefit, he should do so. Stuart started out selling kits for wooden doll houses above a small toy shop in east London, ending up with a string of companies valued at £14.5 million before he died. Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, worked for the company, with Jonathan heading successful commercial operations in Germany. Before his death in February 2020, Stuart, 86, arranged for 43 per cent of the business that made up his fortune to be put into a family trust for the benefit of his 'children... and their spouses'. But in 2023, Jonathan discovered that Stuart was not Edward's biological father and was instead the result of a one-night stand. Patricia, the brothers' mother, had previously confided in Edward that he was not Stuart's son during a confidential chat 14 years ago. Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim over the inheritance, with his representative Thomas Braithwaite insisting that the word 'children' in the document meant related to biology and so could not include Edward. But clearing the way for Edward to share in the trust, Sir Anthony said Stuart had considered both boys to be his biological sons and treated them as such. Sir Anthony said: 'He would naturally have described them as his biological children and as far as he and everyone else was concerned – apart from his wife and possibly Edward's father – that is exactly what they were... In that context Stuart chose to use a word – 'children' – which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly. 'This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world – Stuart's real world in particular – Edward was Stuart's child. 'Edward was treated for practical, familial and all other purposes as a biological child, nothwithstanding the true fact that he was not. 'Stuart's intention is exactly the intended the word to include Edward.'
The Sun
26-06-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Millionaire toy maker's son fighting to block half-brother from dad's £14.5m fortune after mum's secret affair revealed
A MILLIONAIRE toy maker's son is fighting to boot his illegitimate half-brother out of his dad's £14.5m family fortune after their mum's secret affair was revealed. Stuart Marcus built a lucrative games empire after he began selling dolls' houses from a room above a small East London toy shop in the 1960s. 3 Shortly before he died, he put £14.5m worth of company shares into trust for his "children," with brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, both benefiting. But the family was thrown into turmoil after the revelation that Edward was not Stuart's son, but instead the product of an affair between his mum, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop. Last year, a judge ruled that Stuart was not Edward's dad, but said that Edward could still benefit from the £14.5m fortune on the basis that both brothers were intended to share. This week, the case came back to court, with lawyers for Jonathan arguing that it was wrong to let solicitor Edward share the wealth when he was not Stuart's biological son. Barrister Thomas Braithwaite, for Jonathan, insisted that the word "children" in the trust document meant "biological children" and so could not include Edward. Stuart Marcus - 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, later transferring the company HQ to Swaffham, in Norfolk. 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 such as property, 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. From the witness box, Edward told how his mum suddenly spilled the revelation about her affair and his paternity during a meeting at his home in 2010. He said he then searched online for anything about his mystery dad, finally tracking him down to a retirement home near Birmingham, which he and his mum visited in order to meet Sydney. Once there, he witnessed the pair of them "cuddling," said Edward, telling the court: "I saw her sit on the bed and cuddle him and I was shocked to see her behaving that way because it wasn't the way I saw her behave with my father." However, he said he began to harbour doubts about his mum's news and claimed she went back on her account in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his dad. After three days in court last year judge Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart's son. But found the family trust does not exclude Edward, as in the context of the trust settlement, the word "children" meant both boys. This week, representing Jonathan in an appeal at the High Court, Mr Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit. Stuart's trust described the beneficiaries as his "children," which Mr Braithwaite insisted could only be taken in its ordinary meaning, "biological children." But for Edward, barrister Matthew Mills 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. "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 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. 3
Daily Mail
26-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
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
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.
