The £1.1m will of a Crufts champion dog breeder is at the centre of a High Court fight between her son and a kennel hand.
David Brand, 59, says Mary Swash, pictured, a well known breeder of pedigree Airedale terriers, treated him like “family” and promised to look after him for life.
Brand worked alongside Swash for 34 years until she died at the age of 89 in July 2025, living in quarters on her farm in Hampshire.
Brand was left £100,000 in the dog breeder’s will, with the rest of Swash’s £1.1m going to her only son, John Cartledge.
The kennel hand is now suing Swash’s estate and her son as executor, claiming he deserves “reasonable provision” for life.
Swash set up Jokyl kennels in 1959 on her farm in West Tisted, Alresford, going on to breed generations of prize-winning pedigree Airedale terriers. In 1986, her dog Ginger Christmas Carol took the best-in-show prize at Crufts.
High Court judge Deputy Master Michael Jefferis heard that Brand started living and working with Swash in 1992.
Brand is still living in her house, over a year after her death, looking after ten Airedales, six of which belong to her estate and four of his own.
Swash’s estate consists mainly of her farm, valued at £1.1m last December, plus £70,000 in cash, in addition to the £100,000 left to Brand.
She also transferred £7,500 into a “dog fund” before her death, which Brand had been using for canine expenses and which he says has now run out.
In January this year, he lodged a caveat against the will, freezing the assets of the estate.Brand informed Swash’s son and executor, Cartledge, via his lawyers that he intended to bring a claim for “reasonable provision” under the 1975 Inheritance Act, on the basis he was “dependent” on her.
The case reached London’s High Court, with George Woodhead, counsel for Brand, making an interim application, requesting money from the estate for him to live on until the trial of the case next year.
He asked for a £50,000 lump sum or £865 a month from the estate until trial.
Luke Harris, acting for Cartledge, told the judge that his client had already been paying Brand £350 a month, as well as providing food for the ten dogs and paying for estate expenses.
Cartledge had also offered to settle the whole claim out of court by buying Brand a £300,000 house with his late mum’s money, which he would have the right to occupy for life, on top of his £100,000 legacy.
The court heard that Cartledge had written an email to Brand’s lawyers, saying: “David [Brand] will not be homeless, I am fully aware of his position and what he meant to mum and it is my duty to make sure he lives comfortably for the rest of his life.”
But lawyers for Brand earlier this month “asserted for the first time that it was highly likely [when calculated]…that his lifetime needs exceed the entire net value of the estate.”
Brand’s lawyers said his client “shouldn’t have to rely on the goodwill of Mr Cartledge” which he described as “insufficient”.
Woodhead said: “He is facing winter with little money, which he sees diminishing. He relies on three female friends to cook for him and bring him cake.
“My client is scared for the next few months. He is looking after ten dogs. The £350 a month offered will run out and he may not be able to feed himself or the dogs by midwinter, and then what?”
“We have here a 59-year-old man in poor health who should not have to rely on the goodwill of a man who is contesting his standing to bring this claim.”
When Swash was alive she provided Brand with his home in the kennels, paid all his bills, for his food and his vehicle, plus £50 a week pocket money.
Woodhead added: “It is said against us that David was just an employee, but there was never a wage paid to David and there was no contract. David’s evidence is that Mrs Swash referred to him as being family in all but blood.”
Brand also claims to have “provided devoted care towards the end of [Swash’s] life”.
Woodhead said the £300,000 offered by Cartledge would not pay for a suitable property, as Hampshire is expensive. “He wants to stay in the region. He has a fairly narrow existence. This was his world,” he added.
Following a half-day hearing, Cartledge, who didn’t attend personally, agreed to increase David’s monthly payments to £850, plus £1,500 a month in estate expenses, including providing food for the dogs.
Referring to the £300,000 accommodation offer, his barrister told the judge that Cartledge had been keen to avoid court. “It is unusual in this kind of case for there to have been an open offer to settle proceedings,” he said. “The claimant will potentially exhaust the whole of the estate. On his own prediction, the claim may be advanced on the footing that his needs exceed the whole net estate.”
The judge said: “As I understand it, Mr Cartledge has been trying to do a deal and Mr Brand has been saying ‘no.’ I do have the feeling that [John] has been quite generous.
“The defendant should be lauded for recognising that he has a responsibility to look after the claimant. In my judgment, this was not a commercial relationship. £50 pocket money was paid. This was an informal arrangement that ran for 34 years.
“Mrs Swash spoke about him as if he were a member of the family and said that she was hoping to buy him a house and get him settled so that if she died he would be looked after. I do find that there is a strong claim and that the claimant is in immediate need.”
He added: “I think that the £850 a month figure is probably on the generous side. I have not been told why Mr Brand can’t get another job and why looking after ten dogs is a full time occupation and why the estate dogs can’t be sold.”
