Brothers face £1m bill after 'sexism' fight with sister lost over dad's £9m will
Two brothers sued by their sister after she complained of being written out of their father's sexist bill face a £1million bill.
Julie Mate, won a share of the £9million fortune she helped to create earlier this year when she went up against her brothers Andrew and Robert Mate.
The pair were given the whole of their family's West Yorkshire dairy farm, which Julie worked world hard on to increase its value.
On top of their own lawyers' bills, it means the total cost of the defeat in court for the two brothers will be well over £1m.
Julie received a £652,000 payout and now, the brothers face a £1million bill as the Judge Andrew Sutcliffe KC said the brothers would have to pay 75% of Julie's lawyers' bills.
London flat for rent for £1,400 a month with bed tucked away in kitchen cupboard
The bills are estimated to be at about £500,000 - with about £269,000 up front, pending a full assessment.
Entrance to Fold Farm, Netherton (Champion News)He made the reduction to mark the fact that she had lost on her claim that she had been promised an equal share of the sale proceeds if she got the land removed from the Green Belt.
He said the assessment of the brothers' bill would be done on the punishing "indemnity" basis after last September, because they had rejected an offer by Julie to settle the case for £650,000.
"In view of the fact that Robert and Andrew's acceptance of Julie's offer would have resulted in there being no trial, it is appropriate that they should be required to pay Julie's costs of the indemnity basis from 6 September 2022 onwards," he said.
She managed to get the land removed from the Green Belt so that it could be built on and while this act dramatically increased its value, she did not receive a share of the rewards.
Julie argued that she worked on the project between 2008 and 2015 with a planning consultant and was under the impression that, if it was profitable, she would see an equal share of the rewards.
The local council approved it for housing in 2012, and Julie called Andrew to update him.
She told him she had done the work "on behalf of the girls," to which Andrew is said to have asked angrily: "What's it got to do with you?"
"She described it as 'his typical rant,' which she understood to mean 'push off, you silly woman'," Judge Sutcliffe said.
The land was ultimately included in the council's Local Plan in 2015, but Julie soon discovered that - without informing her - her mum and brothers had already agreed a £9million sale to developers Persimmon Homes Ltd to build a 250-house estate.
UK house prices fall again - down 3.2% from last year peak, says Nationwide
Judge Sutcliffe added the brothers had been "unjustly enriched" as a result.
"There can be no doubt that Julie was the successful party," said the judge, making the costs order yesterday.
The judge ordered them to pay £268,993.83 up front, representing half of Julie's costs up to September 5 and 65% after that, pending a full assessment.
Their father died in 1992 and left his share of the farm to his wife Shirley and sons, with Shirley, now 89, later also giving her share to the boys.
Julie Mate outside the High Court. She launched her successful appeal in 2020 (Champion News)His daughters - Julie, Gillian Robson and Virginia Boothroyd - shared only £36,000 between them.
In a letter to her sister Virginia, Julie complained about a "male-dominated farming tradition."
She wrote: "To be extremely blunt, given the value of the farm - when dad died, but particularly now - we three have been extremely badly done to.
"You can call it the outcome of a male-dominated farming tradition, bloody mindedness, or simply male chauvinism - whatever it was, and with no disrespect to dad, it really doesn't wash nowadays."
Ruling in her favour after the dispute at the High Court, the judge said: "I accept Julie's evidence that at no time did she tell either of her brothers or Shirley that she would work on this project for nothing, without expectation of any reward.
"On the contrary, from the time when the issue was first raised by Julie with Shirley, Andrew and Robert in 2004, Julie was clear that she saw the possibility of developing part of the farm as a way she and her sisters could benefit."
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
