Latest news with #SharonDuggan
The Sun
09-07-2025
- General
- The Sun
‘Noise sensitive' woman blows entire £100k inheritance on court row with sisters over home for ‘emotional support' dogs
A WOMAN has blown her entire £100k inheritance on a "wasteful" legal battle against her sisters for her late mum's home. Sharon Duggan tried to block her siblings, Brenda 55, and Ann, 60, from their inheritance, arguing she needed the £420,000 house for her therapeutic rescue dogs. 4 The "noise sensitive" 49-year-old claimed the property in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018 and refused to move out. She said should be allowed to stay in the property, claiming she needed it for her and her emotional support dogs because she could not bear living in a noisy flat. Former NHS worker Sharon then took her older sisters to court after they tried to claim their equal third share in the home, which was left to all three daughters. But she now faces a "grim reality" after her case at the Central London County Court was kicked out last month, with a judge ruling in favour of her siblings. Judge Alan Johns KC accepted that Sharon had "particular issues," but concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. It means she must now foot a hefty lawyers bill for the "extremely wasteful and expensive" dispute. Ordering her to stump up the costs, which are yet to be calculated, he said: "This marks a sad end to a sad case. "It is likely that Sharon will be left with nothing of the £100,000 or more that otherwise would have been her inheritance. "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 "That is the heavy price to be paid by her for pursuing this litigation to trial." Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after Judge Johns threw out Sharon's claim. Sharon had used the 1975 Inheritance Act to argue she deserved "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money. Parents Sue Charity Over £100k Fund After Losing Son and Facing Daughter's Illness She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, including dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD and long Covid, meant she was entitled to the house. Sharon argued that her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and told how she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014. Most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. She went on to claim that Agnes had plans 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". Her barrister added: "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. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively." But Brenda insisted that Sharon would be fine to live in a flat. 4 4 Finding in favour of Sharon's sisters, Judge Johns continued: "It's my judgement 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. "Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate." Returning to court to decide who should pay the costs of the trial, lawyers for Brenda and for their mum's estate argued that neither should be left out of pocket when it was Sharon who brought the case. Brenda's barrister told the judge that offers had been made to Sharon pre-trial which would have seen her receive extra money, but she had refused. Judge Johns ordered that she pay the lawyers' bills of both Brenda and their mum's estate, with the sums to be assessed at a later date. He added: "It is submitted that Sharon should not be allowed to walk away without any costs order being made. I agree." Sharon was not present in court for the costs hearing. 4
Daily Mirror
09-07-2025
- Health
- Daily Mirror
Woman 'wastes' entire £100k inheritance in 'sad' court fight over mum's home
Former NHS worker Sharon Duggan took her sisters to court over who inherits the family home - but a judge said it is 'highly likely' her court costs will wipe out her share of her mother's estate A woman who sued her sisters in a bid to keep their dead mum's £420,000 home has wasted her entire share of the inheritance on court fees. Former NHS worker Sharon Duggan wanted to keep the home in Southgate, Crawley after the death of her 78-year-old mum Agnes who died in 2018 to live in with her support dogs. Last month she lost her fight to take the house and the judged agreed it should be split three ways. Today, at a cost hearing at Judge Alan Johns KC said the 'grim reality' was that it would be 'highly likely' her court costs will wipe out the share of her mother's estate she is rightfully due. In the trial last month, Sharon Duggan took her sisters, alternative therapist Brenda, 55 and oldest sister Ann, 60 to Central London County Court. Sharon - who told a judge she was "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 she needed the house for herself and her therapeutic rescue dogs, saying she is too sensitive for life in a flat. She sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money, claiming her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean she should get at least a life interest in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and won, after Judge Alan Johns threw out Sharon's claim. The judge accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues,' but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. The court heard that most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out. 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 therapeutic dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'. Sharon claimed she 'sacrificed' her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014, also arguing that her mum 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'. '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. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively." 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. A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest, or alternatively an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, defended the claim, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a flat. 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.' He said Sharon had moved into her mum's house while in an 'excellent' financial position, although her finances are now badly depleted. She also lived with Agnes rent free and, although she had spent time caring for her mum while in declining health, the court's role wasn't simply to 'reward meritorious conduct'. 'Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate," he said. 'I don't rule out flats as suitable accommodation,' he added, also noting that Sharon should be able to work once the court case is behind her. 'As to her ability to work I don't accept that she is unable to work at all - or at least she will be after this litigation is dealt with,' he told the court, adding that Sharon herself had accepted in court that she hopes eventually to work again. He also rejected her claim that Brenda was estranged from their mum towards the end of her life. 'Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn't permitted by Sharon," he said. "That evidence included that her telephone calls were blocked and I accept all that evidence. This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of." At the hearing today, Judge Johns said: "This marks a sad end to a sad case. 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." He ordered that she pay the lawyers' bills of both Brenda and their mother's estate, with the totals to be assessed at a later date, but estimated at more than the £100,000-plus she is due to inherit. Judge Johns added: "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." Sharon was not in court for the costs hearing.
Telegraph
09-07-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Woman ‘wastes' £100k inheritance on court battle to live in family home
A former NHS worker faces losing her entire inheritance after a 'wasteful' court battle over her late mother's £420,000 home. Sharon Duggan, 49, was left a third share of her mother's home after she died but said she should be allowed to stay in the property, claiming she needed the house for her and her emotional support dogs. Ms Duggan is suing Ann and Brenda, her sisters, and has claimed she need to live at their mother's house in Crawley, West Sussex, because she is too 'hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive' to live 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 the lawyers' bills for the dispute. Judge Alan Johns KC said the 'grim reality' was that the costs of the legal battle would be 'highly likely' to wipe out the share of her mother's estate that Ms Duggan 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.' Too sensitive for flat life Agnes Duggan died at the age of 78 in August 2018 and left her house to be split equally between her three daughters – Ann, the oldest sister, Sharon, a former NHS medical secretary, and Brenda, an alternative therapist. But Sharon – who told a judge 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 rescue dogs, saying she was too sensitive for life in a flat. She told the court 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 sued her two sisters under the Inheritance Act 1975, claiming her medical ailments and sensitivity to noise meant she should get at least a life interest, or permission to reside in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and won. Giving judgment last month, Judge Johns accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues' but ultimately ruled that a flat still be 'suitable' accommodation for her. 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. 'Extremely wasteful' Alex Findlay, Brenda's barrister, told the judge that offers had been made to Sharon pre-trial that 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 added. 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 set 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 added.
Daily Mail
09-07-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
'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
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.
Telegraph
04-06-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Woman who wanted family home for therapy dogs loses inheritance battle
A former NHS worker has lost her inheritance battle over her late mother's £420,000 home. Sharon Duggan, 49, told her sisters Brenda, 55, and Ann, 60, that they couldn't have their thirds of the house in Southgate, Crawley, because she needed it for her and her emotional support dogs. But a judge has now ruled 'hyper-vigilant' Sharon can move into a flat instead, and the house must be shared equally among the sisters as laid out in their mother Agnes's will. Agnes Duggan died in August 2018, aged 78, and left her house to be split equally between her three daughters – Ann, the oldest sister, Sharon, a former NHS medical secretary, and Brenda, an alternative therapist. But Sharon – who told a judge 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 rescue dogs, saying she was too sensitive for life in a flat. Sharon sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming her medical ailments and sensitivity to noise meant she should get at least a life interest in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and has now won, after Judge Alan Johns KC threw out Sharon's claim at Central London county court. The court heard that most of Agnes's estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. But after Agnes died, Sharon insisted her needs outweighed her sisters' right to their inheritance, arguing that it would be difficult to find alternative accommodation for her and her two therapy dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'. Sharon said she 'sacrificed' her career to move in and care for Agnes in 2014, before arguing their mother was planning to change her will to leave the house to her. She also claimed to have spent £30,000 funding Agnes's vet bills for her dog, Lady, and that she 'psychologically could not cope with living in a flat again'. Her written arguments to the court said '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 make finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. 'The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively.' She told the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive. 'A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon wanted either the house to be transferred to her outright, the right to a life interest, or an order allowing her to buy her mother's old property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, defended the claim, insisting Sharon and her pets could move into a flat. 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.' He said she had lived with Agnes rent-free and, although she had spent time caring for her mum while in declining health, the court's role wasn't simply to 'reward meritorious conduct'. 'Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate,' he said. 'I don't rule out flats as suitable accommodation,' he added, also noting that Sharon should be able to work once the court case is behind her. He also rejected her claim that Brenda was estranged from their mum towards the end of her life. 'Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn't permitted by Sharon,' he said. 'That evidence included that her telephone calls were blocked and I accept all that evidence.' 'This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of,' he said, adding that the money Sharon claimed to have spent on Lady's vet bills was an overestimate. 'Essentially, provision was made for Sharon by giving her one-third of the estate.' The decision means the three sisters are each due a third of their mother's estate, although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial.
