Cider boss who torched brother’s car after will dispute handed £875k bill from court fight – UK Times

A former cider company boss who torched his mineral water tycoon brother’s car after being left less than him in their parents’ wills has been hit with a massive £875,000 court bill after suing and losing.

Alastair Bowerman, 57, went to court after being left a one-third share of the £230,000 cash his parents left in their wills, while brother Ben Bowerman, 60, got cash and their shares in the 460-acre family farm on Dorset’s Isle of Purbeck, which includes a grade I-listed medieval manor house and is home to a lucrative mineral water spring.

Jean and John Bowerman, the brothers’ parents, had originally made wills in 1988, splitting their cash between Alastair and their third brother, David, to balance out the fact that Ben was to be handed the family farm business at Godlingston Manor, near Swanage.

John’s estate was at the time expected to be boosted by inheritance money from his own father, which he stipulated should also be distributed in a way that favoured Alastair and David.

The farm is home to a natural mineral water spring exploited through a company which Ben runs, and at one point was the third biggest supplier of water cooler bottles in the country.

But in 1999, Jean and John both made new wills, handing Ben an equal share of their cash and any cash from John’s father, alongside their remaining shares of the farm business, having already handed him most of it a year earlier.

Following the death of John in 2004 and Jean in 2012, it became clear that the anticipated inheritance from John’s father had not gone into their estates, leaving them with just £230,000 together.

Alastair – whose Dorset Cider company folded the year after his mum’s death – became more and more disgruntled over the years about the division of his parents’ wealth, telling lawyers that he “did not agree with the gift of the farm business” to Ben, making complaints about “incorrect happenings” and suspecting a “conspiracy”.

Relations became so bad between the two brothers that in 2015, Alastair was handed a criminal conviction for arson and hit with a restraining order after “setting fire to Ben’s car”.

He later alleged that Ben “had committed fraud … and corruption on a massive scale”, in an email to lawyers.

Last year, he went to London’s High Court and, representing himself in a four-day trial staring in April, sued his two brothers in their roles as executors of their parents’ wills, along with the professional administrator of Jean’s estate, claiming that his dad’s 1999 will was invalid for lack of knowledge and approval and challenging his mum’s on grounds of undue influence by Ben.

But despite succeeding in his bid to convince Master Julia Clark that his father was too ill to properly understand what he was doing when he changed his will in 1999, Alastair lost his case, having delayed too long before bringing the challenge. His claims regarding his mum’s will were dismissed.

Now he has been handed an enormous legal costs bill for the action – wiping out his inheritance many times over – with Ben’s lawyers demanding more than £777,000, while his brother David and the administrator of Jean’s estate are claiming around another £100,000 between them.

The court heard that the 460-acre Godlingston Manor Farm stands on National Trust land within a protected area of outstanding natural beauty, on the Isle of Purbeck, Dorset.

The farm includes a grade-I listed manor house, with parts dating from 1166, and a lucrative natural mineral water spring.

From 1949 until 1994, when John suffered a debilitating stroke, the farm was run as a mixed arable and dairy farm by John in partnership with Jean.

In light of his ill health in 1998, the couple signed over most of their interest in the farm to Ben, with a smaller share going to the mineral water company, of which he and his wife are now the sole directors.

In her judgment last November, Master Clark explained how the dispute between the brothers grew after John and Jean decided to change their wills in 1999 to also give Ben an equal share of their cash, as well as their remaining shares in the farm business.

As well as the stroke, John also had intermittent episodes of heart failure, which saw him hospitalised.

It was around the time of one of these episodes that he signed his new will, although he had previously discussed and drafted its contents with his solicitors.

After the death of his father, Alastair began to make it clear he was unhappy about the division of the family wealth and over the next decade, he contacted lawyers several times seeking advice.

Relations grew so bad between Alastair and Ben that, on 26 May 2015, “following a criminal conviction for arson – setting fire to Ben’s car”, a restraining order was made against Alastair, banning him from any direct contact with Ben or his immediate family, said the judge.

However, Alastair didn’t bring a claim challenging the wills until 2023, a decade after his mum’s death and over 18 years after that of his father.

Master Clark, in her judgment, said that Alastair’s assertion that his dad lacked testamentary capacity when he changed his will in 1999 was well-founded.

None of the lawyers involved “undertook a formal assessment of John’s capacity” at the time he signed, said the judge.

“It is, in my judgment, clear that if they had spoken to (his treating doctor) on that day, he would have told them that John’s current state meant he lacked capacity,” she said.

“I find therefore that John did not have capacity to execute his 1999 will… John also did not know and approve the content of his 1999 will.”

However, she threw out Alastair’s bid to overturn the will, saying he had delayed too long, having known its contents from around the time it was made.

“In any event, he was told its contents shortly after John died,” she continued.

“The length of the delay in bringing the claim is therefore 18 and a half years.

“Alastair took legal advice in relation to his parents’ estates, but took no steps to challenge the wills. He sought to explain this by reference to his health… and the restraining order.

“As to the first, this cannot, in my judgment, explain the lengthy period before the challenge to the wills was brought. As to the restraining order, this specifically exempted communication through solicitors and did not therefore prevent a claim from being brought.

“I consider, therefore, there is no proper explanation for the delay in bringing the claim and it is… inexplicable.

“Alastair has not, therefore, in my judgment, shown any justification for his delay in challenging John’s 1999 will.”

She barred his claim due to the delay and the prejudice it caused to the other parties in the case and then went on to also throw out his claim that Jean’s diary entries showed that she had been subject to “undue influence” from Ben when she changed her will.

The diary entries showed some feelings of conflict between her and Ben, she said, but “these entries post-date Jean’s 1999 will by five to six years”.

“The 1999 will was made when John was still alive, and Jean had his support. The diary entries are made after his death and at a significantly later stage in Jean’s life. There is no suggestion in them that the 1999 will was obtained by any sort of pressure or that Jean regretted executing it.

“Thirdly and most importantly, none of the incidents described in the diary, in my judgment, show pressure being exerted sufficient to amount to coercion in the sense of Jean’s will being overborne.

“I am not, therefore, satisfied that Jean’s 1999 will was procured by undue influence, and Alastair’s challenge to it on that ground fails.”

At a costs hearing last week, the judge went on to order Alastair to pay the lawyers’ bills for the case put forward by Ben, his brother David – who works as a bespoke clock and furniture maker – and the professional administrator, with £475,000 up front towards an estimated total of around £875,000.

The court was told that the “overall costs to be paid will exceed the sums in the estate”.

Alastair did not attend court for the costs hearing and was not represented.