The High Court has ruled a woman must return £2.6 million of her deceased mother’s fortune after she and her husband “unduly influenced” Jeanne MacDougall into giving them three properties.
However, the judge rejected claims of testamentary undue influence in relation to the final will of Mrs MacDougall, which had been contested by her son Gary MacDougall.
Mr MacDougall had also claimed his sister Sandra Thomas and her husband Philip Thomas (pictured) “extracted significant sums” of up to £1.7 million from their mother’s bank account while Mrs Thomas had power of attorney between 2012 and 2020.
Judge Nicola Rushton KC upheld Mrs MacDougall’s 2011 will, which largely benefited Mr and Mrs Thomas, but ruled they must return to the estate the money they took from the bank accounts, as well as the three properties that had been signed over to them. Both Sandra and Philip breached their fiduciary duties as attorneys, the judge found.
Under the terms of Mrs MacDougall’s final will, Mr MacDougall is now entitled to half of the sums ordered to be returned, estimated to be around £2.6 million.
The judge said Mrs Thomas, along with her husband, had misused over £1 million of her mother’s money and used the bank accounts in an “extensive and wholesale” way, “as if they were their own”.
The couple had also “unduly influenced” Mrs MacDougall into giving them three properties worth an estimated £1.6 million, the court found.
“Suffice it to say, the misuse of Jeanne’s bank accounts by Sandra and Philip was extensive and wholesale,” the judge said.
“Jeanne’s accounts and her assets were simply used by Sandra and Philip as if they were their own, without any regard whatsoever for any fiduciary duties, or even familial obligations to Jeanne.”
During the trial in February, the judge heard the MacDougall family fortune derived from the siblings’ property developer father Alec MacDougall’s “substantial real estate portfolio”.
For Gary MacDougall, barrister Harry Martin claimed that over the years it had been made clear to the two siblings by their parents that they would ultimately receive “broadly equal financial treatment and inheritance”.
Following their father’s death, the siblings’ mother made a will in 2008, which Mr Martin said amounted to a “broadly equal” split between her son and his family on one side and daughter and son-in-law on the other.
Under that will, Gary and his family would receive two properties, while Sandra and Philip would receive two properties as well as most of the cash in Mrs MacDougall’s bank accounts.
However, a second will made in 2011 left all four properties to Sandra and her husband, as well as the majority of the savings.
The siblings would split the remainder of the estate, but after costs and expenses Mr Martin said that was “likely to be worth nil”.
Gary MacDougall, who had worked with his mother in the family business, claimed the will was invalid as she had by then “lost almost all of her independence”, lacked the necessary mental capacity due to dementia, and did not properly understand its effect.
For Mr and Mrs Thomas, Alexander Learmonth KC said they accepted overstepping their duties under a lasting power of attorney but said it was essentially “an advance on their inheritance”.
They had not been properly advised about what they could do and believed they could deal with her money in the way they believed she would have wanted, spending it to reduce inheritance tax, he said.
There were perfectly explicable reasons why Mrs MacDougall had changed her will in favour of her daughter and son-in-law, who had looked after her in her old age, he added.
In her decision, Judge Rushton found the 2011 will was not tainted by undue influence, nor by mental frailness.
“Jeanne was genuinely very grateful to Sandra and Philip for the home and the support they had been giving her,” she said.
“It is unsurprising that she wanted to express her generous nature by rewarding them.”
But she ruled that the actions of Sandra and Philip over the years had depleted the value of the estate, which should have included the properties given to the couple in 2008 and the money they spent.
She found that the transfers of properties worth an estimated £1.2 million were the result of their “undue influence”, saying “the likeliest explanation for the transfer” was “simply that Philip and Sandra persuaded Jeanne to do it, probably over an extended period”.
She added: “It is also in the nature of undue influence that it works in the shadows”, with the transfer of one property marking the start of “transactions which favoured Philip and Sandra and their family over Gary and his family, starting in an unobtrusive way, but becoming increasingly unashamed over time.
“This was a pattern which gathered force in a manner which in my view was more indicative of greed and a sense of entitlement on the part of Philip and Sandra than of choices and efforts by Jeanne to achieve equality between her children.”
The judge went on to find that the couple were in breach of their duties under the power of attorney by spending Mrs MacDougall’s money on themselves.
“I understand that the total of the sums spent through them was in excess of £1 million, although I have made no attempt to total them up,” she said.
“Mr Martin submits that there was a pattern of properties being sold for cash, the proceeds being paid into the accounts and then used not only for ordinary living expenses but also for more extravagant expenses, including cars, holidays, the two weddings, college fees for Sandra and Philip’s children, and many cash withdrawals, among other things.
“Although Philip denied in cross examination that there was such a pattern, I consider that such a pattern is the most obvious conclusion to be drawn from an overview of the bank statements, especially as the only other apparent source of income for Philip and Sandra was rent from their other properties.
“The excuses made for this breach of duty do not make any difference. Ignorance of their duties is not a defence.
“In any event, the LPA explained on its face what the duties were. They had plenty of opportunity to clarify the position and to take advice, but they did not do so. This was deliberate misconduct driven by greed, for which there is no excuse.
“There was a clear cycle of emptying Jeanne’s bank accounts, realising an asset to generate more cash, and then repeating the process again.
“No thought was given to how Jeanne’s care would be paid for, and at her death she had virtually no cash left.”
The effect of the judge’s ruling is that the 2011 will stands and the residue of the estate will now include the value of the disputed properties. An account would also have to be taken of the money spent by the couple to determine what they must pay to the estate as compensation, the judge added, which would then be split with Gary.
Gary Alexander MacDougall v Lloyd Philip Thomas & Ors [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch)
