Ellisons recently successfully represented the Defendant, Edward Marcus, in a High Court dispute brought by his brother regarding a complex family trust, holding assets including shares in the family business worth approximately £14.5 million.
Stuart and Patricia Marcus had two children, the Claimant (Jonathan Marcus) and Defendant (Edward Marcus) in the above proceedings. The Claimant and Defendant were raised as brothers. Stuart Marcus was a successful businessman, having founded a toy business in 1962 that later acquired Sequin Art. The family business later demerged into two groups of companies, which both Jonathan and Edward worked within.
With a view to protecting his assets, Stuart Marcus placed shares in the family companies in a discretionary trust in 2003 in favour of his children and remoter issue, which was the subject of this litigation.
Following discovery that their mother had an affair, Jonathan brought the High Court dispute claiming that Edward should not be entitled to any of the trust assets as a discretionary beneficiary on the basis that he was not Stuart's biological child. Edward, instructing Ellisons, defended this claim on the basis that he is Stuart's son, and in any event, upon proper construction of the trust documents, and when taking into consideration the context within which the trust was made, Edward should remain a discretionary beneficiary.
Much of the case turned on the proper construction of the words "children and remoter issue", and whether this included Edward.
The judge found that Edward was not the biological son of Stuart. However, the judge emphasised that Edward and Jonathan were both raised as Stuart and Patricia's children and were born within their marriage. Amongst other points, the judge considered that Stuart believed that Edward was his son, there is no indication that Stuart thought he had any other biological children further to Edward and Jonathan, and there was no reason for Stuart to have treated the brothers differently when the trust was set up.
The judge found that the circumstances surrounding the creation of the trust overwhelmingly favoured a wider meaning of the word "children". As such, Edward was held to be a beneficiary of the discretionary trust.
The full judgment can be found here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.