Two sons of a toymaking tycoon are in a High Court battle over a share of his £14.5million business empire – as one claims the other was ‘conceived by his mother on a one-night stand with a lawyer’ so is not entitled to the fortunes.
Stuart Marcus – described by business colleagues as ‘a modest man with a big dream and a big heart’ – started out selling wooden dolls’ house kits above a small east London toy shop and ended up with a string of companies valued at nearly £15m before he died.
His sons Edward, 46, and Jonathan, 42, worked alongside Stuart as the brand grew and diversified into other fields such as property, with Jonathan heading up successful commercial operations in Germany.
Before his death in 2019, aged 86, Stuart 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 remoter issue…and their spouses’.
But Jonathan is now suing his older brother, claiming Edward is actually the product of a one-night stand his mum had with a former lover while his dad was away on business and, as only his half-brother, he is not entitled to a share of the trust.
Jonathan bases his claim on a confession by the brothers’ 81-year-old mum Patricia Marcus that she had an affair with Sydney Glossop, a lawyer with whom she had a relationship with before she married Stuart.
Edward admits he was blown away by his mum’s shock revelation that he wasn’t Stuart’s son during a confidential chat in 2010, but says she later retracted the confession.
The bombshell was kept secret for more than a decade, but Jonathan finally discovered the news last year, triggering his High Court bid to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of Stuart’s trust, which he says is backed by DNA evidence.
But Edward is fighting the claim, denying the DNA proves he was not Stuart’s natural child and arguing that he would be entitled to share in the trust in any case.
His barrister, Matthew Mills, told the court: ‘Fundamentally, this case is about the most important question in a person’s life – their identity.
‘What this case seeks to do is to entirely turn my client’s life on its head.’
The court heard Stuart Marcus founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits, later transferring the company HQ to a four-acre site at Swaffham, in Norfolk, where the company focuses on selling ‘Sequin Art’ craft packs.
The disputed trust he set up holds shares in ‘valuable family companies’, the court heard, including a 43% stake in the Kitfix Swallow Group of companies, whose value was estimated at £14.5 million in 2019.
Sketching out Jonathan’s case, his barrister Thomas Braithwaite told the judge, Master Matthew Marsh, that the trust established by Stuart Marcus was in favour of ‘the children and remoter issue of the settlor and their spouses’.
‘The key question for the court is whether Edward and his family fall within that description,’ he told the judge, Master Matthew Marsh.
‘In 2010, Edward and Jonathan’s mother, Patricia, revealed to Edward that he is not Stuart’s son.
‘DNA evidence has confirmed that he and Jonathan are not full brothers.
‘Not only does this impact upon Edward’s present status and future entitlements, but Jonathan says that, had he known this, in light of the family friction at the time, Stuart would not have appointed Edward a co-trustee of the settlement in 2016.
‘Edward defends the claim on the facts. He says that Stuart was his father.’
Despite admitting that his mum told him Stuart was not his real dad, Edward is fighting the case, claiming she later retracted the confession.
From the witness box, he told the court how his mum suddenly spilled the revelation about her affair at his home in 2010.
Patricia Marcus, who had kept her dalliance a secret for 30 years, also revealed the name of her lover, Sydney Glossop, a lawyer whom she had a relationship with before she married Stuart, and who has now also died.
His mum told him not to tell his younger brother the news, because he was ‘too hot-headed and judgmental’, Edward claimed, adding: ‘it was an absolute bombshell’.
‘I was very troubled and she said she didn’t trust Jonathan and was scared of his reaction,’ he added, although his brother’s barrister brushed aside this claim.
After his mum’s confession, Edward searched online to see if he could find out 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, he said.
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.’
But Edward said he began to harbour doubts about his mum’s news, particularly as it seemed to conflict with his knowledge about strong family characteristics he shared with Stuart, such as asthma and poor eyesight.
And he claimed his mum ended up going back on her account later in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his dad.
‘She told me that I really was the son of Stuart in a car park at Waitrose and that it was all a mistake,’ he told the judge.
Edward also argues that, even if accepted, the DNA tests do not establish which one of the brothers is related to Stuart as no DNA sample was taken from him.
He claims Patricia’s relationship with Sydney may well have continued longer than a single night in 1977 and may have gone on for years, opening up the possibility that it was younger brother Jonathan who was born to Sydney and not him.
He told the court of his mum telling him a story about being at Yew Tree Farm with Sydney and ‘my father arriving home and him having to jump out of the kitchen window and run off through the fields.
‘I can remember a man with white hair playing with our dog at Yew Tree Cottage,’ insisted Edward, adding that his mum explained to him later that this man was Sydney.
Patricia Marcus, however, denied that the relationship with Sydney continued beyond one night in 1977 and gave evidence confirming her belief that Edward is Sydney’s son, adding that her former lover had also ‘accepted Edward as his son’.
She also dismissed Edward’s claims that she ended up ‘cuddling’ with Sydney at his retirement home and rejected his barrister’s claims that she had ‘persuaded herself that Sydney is Edward’s father’.
Exploring the paternity question, Jonathan’s barrister, Mr Braithwaite, said Patricia and Sydney had a relationship which ended before she married Stuart, but that there was then a ‘sexual encounter in 1977 while Stuart was away on business’.
‘She did not tell Stuart and he was registered as Edward’s father following the birth,’ continued Mr Braithwaite, adding: ‘Edward will say that he believes the affair continued after Jonathan’s birth, but there is nothing to support that’.
He said results of DNA tests showed that Edward and Jonathan are half siblings, with it being ’25 times more likely that they are half siblings than full siblings’.
‘It follows that one or other of Jonathan or Edward is unlikely to be Stuart’s son,’ he continued.
‘Patricia’s evidence, and the undisputed fact that it was of course Edward to whom the revelation was initially divulged, can only lead to one conclusion.
‘Edward agrees that he was told in March 2010 that he was Mr Glossop’s son, and the email trail supports that account.
‘It is implausible Patricia would have told him this unless it was true, and vanishingly unlikely that she would have done so if the opposite was true.’
But Edward’s barrister, Mr Mills, challenged the DNA evidence as unreliable, noting that ‘sibling analysis’ is far less conclusive than ‘testing both parents against their alleged children’.
‘Even if Cellmark’s conclusions are accepted, they do not prove Jonathan’s case,’ he went on.
‘Cellmark cannot explain which of Edward or Jonathan is Stuart’s son. Therefore, at most, Cellmark’s analysis leads to a 50-50 conclusion, which fails to satisfy the burden of proof.’
On top of insisting that Stuart was his dad, Edward says that, even if the DNA evidence is accepted by the judge, he should be entitled to benefit from the trust as a step-son of Stuart Marcus.
The bitter family dispute is being played out against the background of the toy and property empire built up by Stuart Marcus, who died without any suspicion that Edward might not be his son.
Stuart’s brainchild, Kitfix, has in recent years transformed into Kitfix Swallow Group, which in 2017 was split into two arms, one focused on making and selling toys and the second focused on property letting.
Patricia and Jonathan are both named as directors of most of the family companies, the court heard, but Edward quit the family business after 2014, following what Jonathan’s barrister labelled a ‘gradual but complete breakdown in relations between Edward on the one hand and Patricia, Stuart and Jonathan on the other’.
The judge has now reserved his judgment, to be given at a later date.