A late toy tycoon's son has failed in an attempt to cut his half-brother out of a £14.5million family fortune despite proving in court that the sibling was not his father's biological child.
Jonathan and Edward Marcus faced off in court over a lucrative family trust set up by their father Stuart Marcus who died four years ago aged 86, having created a multi-million-pound toy and board game empire.
Stuart - dubbed 'a modest man with a big dream and a big heart' by business colleagues - started out selling dolls' houses above a small east London toy shop and ended up with a series of companies valued at £14.5million the year before he died.
Both 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.
But since 2016, relations between the two brothers soured, climaxing in a High Court clash over whether Edward was truly Stuart's natural son.
Jonathan Marcus, 42, and mother Patricia Marcus, 81, pictured outside High Court after a hearing over the paternity dispute involving his half-brother Edward
Late Stuart Marcus, a toymaking tycoon who started out selling wooden dolls' house kits above a small east London toy shop. He is pictured holding one of his art sets
Edward (pictured) claimed 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
The late tycoon Stuart Marcus's company grew from one room in east London to its current four-acre sit at Swaffham, Norfolk (pictured)
Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand his mother had while his dad was away on business and, as only his half-brother, he should not be entitled to any of the 43 per cent of the business Stuart had put into a family trust.
The terms of the trust decreed that it should only benefit his children and their spouses, so eliminating 'half-brother' Edward, claimed Jonathan.
Now, after three days in court a judge Master Matthew Marsh ruled that evidence confirms that Edward is not Stuart's son.
He highlighted what he called the 'cogent and reliable' DNA test evidence - as well as compelling testimony from the two siblings' mother Patricia Marcus.
But he went on to find that the family trust set up by Stuart Marcus does not exclude Edward, as its terms would also count 'non-biological' offspring as beneficiaries.
The bitter family dispute was played out against the background of the toy and property empire built up by Stuart, who died without any suspicion that Edward might not be his son.
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 Swaffham in Norfolk.
The disputed trust he set up holds shares in 'valuable family companies', the court heard, including a 43 percent stake in the Kitfix Swallow Group of firms whose value was estimated at £14.5 million in 2019.
The paternity issue developed after the siblings' mother Patricia Marcus, 81, rocked Edward with the 'monumental' news that he was not Stuart's son during a confidential chat 14 years ago.
Edward Marcus, 46, also pictured outside High Court. He denied the DNA proves he was not Stuart's natural child and argued that he would be entitled to share in the trust in any case
And although Edward kept this secret for more than a decade, his brother says he finally discovered the news last year.
That triggered his court bid to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of Stuart's trust, which he claims was backed by conclusive DNA evidence.
The court heard 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 boiled down to 'whether Edward and his family fall within that description', Jonathan's barrister Thomas Braithwaite told the judge while sketching out the case.
Patricia Marcus told the court she had no doubt that Edward's real father was a lawyer named Sydney Glossop with whom she had a brief encounter more than 40 years ago.
But, despite admitting that his mother told him Stuart was not his real father, Edward defended the case, claiming she later retracted the confession.
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.
After his mother's confession, Edward searched online to see if he could find out 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.
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.'
Patricia Marcus gave evidenceconfirming her belief that Edward is her former loverSydney Glossop's son, adding that he had also 'accepted Edward as his son'
Edward said that in time he began to harbour doubts about his mother's news, especially as it seemed to conflict with his knowledge about strong family characteristics he shared with Stuart such as asthma and poor eyesight.
But he claimed his mother ended up going back on her account later in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his father.
'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.
Patricia Marcus, however, gave evidence confirming her belief that Edward was Sydney's son, adding that her former lover had also 'accepted Edward as his son'.
She told the court she first met Sydney Glossop in the 1960s when she was working as a secretary in Norwich and he was nearly 30 years her senior.
They had a brief relationship before she wed Stuart Marcus, but after the marriage Sydney 'made a nuisance and rang me up constantly', she said - culminating in a one-night encounter in 1977 while Stuart was away on business.
'It was at this meeting that Edward was conceived,' she explained.
On top of insisting that Stuart was his dad, Edward argued that, even if the DNA evidence was accepted by the judge, he should be entitled to benefit from the trust as a step-son of Stuart Marcus.
Master Marsh termed the DNA evidence 'cogent and reliable' in showing that Jonathan and Edward are half siblings and found that 'Edward and Jonathan do not share a biological father'.
Kitfix's company HQ transferred to a four-acre site at Swaffham, in Norfolk, where the company focuses on selling 'Sequin Art' craft packs
But the DNA evidence could not pin down which of the pair was Stuart's son, said the judge, making Patricia Marcus' account of her relationship with Sydney Glossop crucial to the case.
'Patricia is the only person with first-hand knowledge about her relationship with Mr Glossop,' the judge told the court.
'Only she would know about her sexual activity with Stuart, his absences on business, her sexual activity with Mr Glossop.
'Her evidence about Stuart's absence for a period in mid-1977 was not capable of being challenged.
'Even accepting the possibility that she has convinced herself of a set of facts, as to the date of conception and her sexual partner at that time, I consider it is more likely than not her recollection about the core facts is correct.
'I find that Stuart was not Edward's biological father.'
Despite that finding, the judge went on to rule that the aim of Stuart's trust was to benefit both Jonathan and Edward, whether or not they were his biological sons.
The judge concluded: '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.'
One of the 'Sequin Art' craft packs sold by the tycoon's company Kitfix
He will now draw up an order putting his ruling into effect.
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'.
