A lovechild has won his bid to keep half of a toy tycoon’s fortune after his half-brother tried to disinherit him when he learned he was the product of a secret affair.
Stuart Marcus built a multi-million pound games empire after starting off selling dolls from a small east London toy shop in the 1960s.
Before he died in 2020 aged 86, he put £14.5million worth of company shares into a trust for Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, who he believed were his two sons.
However, in 2010, Stuart’s wife Patricia told Edward that his biological father was actually Sydney Glossop, a partner in a law firm in Norwich.
Jonathan only discovered this news in 2023. His relations with Edward had soured by this point and he began a bid to disinherit him.
Last year, a judge ruled that Edward was not Stuart’s son, but he was still entitled to a share of his fortune because this is what Stuart had intended.
This decision was challenged by Jonathan, whose lawyers argued that only he – as the sole biological son – was entitled to his father’s wealth.
However, his case was thrown out this week by High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann.
Edward Marcus (pictured outside court last month) was born out of a one-night stand that his mother had with a lawyer
Jonathan Marcus (pictured with he and his half-brother’s mother, Patricia Marcus last month) tried to disinherit Edward from a share of the fortune
‘Stuart chose to use a word – ”children” – which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly,’ the judge said.
‘This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world – Stuart’s real world in particular – Edward was Stuart’s child.’
Stuart Marcus – dubbed ‘a modest man with a big dream’ by colleagues – founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits, later transferring the company HQ to Swaffham in Norfolk.
The disputed trust he set up holds shares valued at £14.5million in the family companies, in which both brothers worked as the brand grew and diversified into other fields, such as property.
But since 2016, relations between the half-siblings soured, climaxing in the court clash.
Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand that his mother Patricia had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while his father was away on business.
That claim was based on Jonathan’s discovery in 2023 of the ‘monumental’ news that Patricia, now 82, had confided in Edward that he was not Stuart’s son during a confidential chat 14 years ago.
Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, and when Jonathan learned the news he sought to have his half-brother disinherited.
Toy tycoon Stuart Marcus left a £14.5million fortune to his sons Edward and Jonathan – but only Jonathan is his biological son
Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim, while his mother told the court herself that she had no doubt that Edward’s real father was Sydney, with whom she had a brief encounter over 40 years ago.
From the witness box, Edward told how his mother suddenly spilled the revelation about her affair and his paternity during a meeting at his home in 2010.
He said he then searched online for anything about his mystery father, finally tracking him down to a retirement home near Birmingham, which he and his mum visited in order to meet Sydney.
Edward said he watched his mother and Sydney ‘cuddling’ when they were reunited.
‘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,’ he said.
However, he said he began to harbour doubts about his mother’s news and claimed she went back on her account in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his father.
But after three days in court last year, a judge, Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart’s son.
But he went on to find that the family trust does not exclude Edward, as in the context of the trust settlement, the word ‘children’ meant both boys.
Stuart Marcus grew his toy company into a business empire based out of Swaffham in Norfolk (pictured)
‘A reasonable person in knowledge of the relevant facts would readily conclude that, when using ”children”, Stuart intended this word to be understood as meaning Edward and Jonathan; and not Edward and Jonathan provided they are in fact my biological sons,’ he concluded.
Appealing at the High Court, Jonathan’s barrister Thomas Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit.
Stuart’s trust described the beneficiaries as his ‘children,’ which Mr Braithwaite insisted could only be taken in its ordinary meaning, ‘biological children.’
‘The word ”children” simply cannot be a placeholder for two specific people,’ he said, adding that there had been a ‘common mistaken assumption’ when the document was created that the boys were both Stuart’s children.
‘What does children mean? It means biological children, of course. Stuart intended to benefit Edward, but he believed Edward was his biological child.’
For Edward, barrister Matthew Mills argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan’s appeal.
‘Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child,’ he said.
‘Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement.’
The company produces crafting toys such as the Sequin Art series (pictured) as well as painting by numbers sets
Giving judgment, dismissing Jonathan’s appeal and clearing the way for Edward to share in the trust, Sir Anthony said Stuart had considered both boys to be his biological sons and treated them as such.
‘He would naturally have described them as his biological children and as far as he and everyone else was concerned – apart from his wife and possibly Edward’s father – that is exactly what they were, though it is his personal view which is important for these purposes,’ he continued.
‘In that context Stuart chose to use a word – ‘children’ – which, in the real world, described both Edward and Jonathan perfectly.
‘This settlement was intended to operate in the real world, and in that real world – Stuart’s real world in particular – Edward was Stuart’s child.
‘Edward was treated for practical, familial and all other purposes as a biological child, nothwithstanding the true fact that he was not.
‘Stuart’s intention is exactly the same….he intended the word to include Edward.
‘I agree fully with the master in this conclusion, with the result that Edward is one of the settlor’s ‘children’ on the true construction of the settlement.
