Family fight over farmer’s millions

Frank Suggitt was “overjoyed” when his son, John, was born, after three daughters, and always hoped he would take over the family estates near the village of Whenby, to the north of York.

But after John Suggitt, now 31, dropped out of agricultural college and spent a £38,000 bequest from an aunt, his father was so disappointed he left him nothing in his will.

Instead, when the farmer died at the age of 65 in 2009, 400 acres of prime farmland, various houses and Mr Suggitt’s life savings all went to his university graduate daughter, Caroline, 37.

John Suggitt went to court claiming his father had broken repeated promises that the family lands would one day be his.

Judge Roger Kaye QC effectively re-wrote the father’s will, awarding John Suggitt a £3m stake in the fortune, including a £760,000 roof over his head.

His sister challenged that ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, insisting it thwarted her father’s wish that John Suggitt should not get his hands on the family estates until he had proved himself capable of farming them.

But Lady Justice Arden has now rejected the challenge, saying John Suggitt had “based his life” around the farm and, despite his disappointment in his only son, Frank Suggitt would not have wanted him to be homeless. The farmer had assured his daughter she would be “a rich woman on his death”, but also made promises to his son which led him to expect the farmland and a home would “definitely be his following his death”, the judge added.

Describing Frank Suggitt’s will as “curious”, Caroline Suggitt’s barrister, Michael Jefferis, said the farmer had left his daughter everything. But Frank Suggitt expressed the wish his son should eventually get the farmland once his daughter was convinced of his ability to work and manage it.

In a ruling last year, Judge Kaye said Frank Suggitt had been delighted by the birth of a son, who helped during the harvest and tended a small flock of sheep of his own while a child.

But joy turned to chagrin as the years passed after John Suggitt failed to finish a course at an agricultural college and spent the £38,000 he inherited in just nine months.

John Suggitt was “apt to grumble and complain that his father gave him nothing” and seemed “entirely to overlook the fact that his father paid everything for him”, including his food, lodging, living expenses and college fees, the judge added.

Although Frank Suggitt was “overjoyed at the birth of a son after so many daughters” and hopeful that he would be able to carry on the farm after him, he “did not turn out as his father had hoped” and the patriarch “apparently regarded John as lazy”.

Frank Suggitt was “repeatedly disappointed” by his son, although he wanted him to succeed him and to be “a good farmer in the family tradition”.

“Frank brought John up in a tough way and in a tough world, but John could not cope. John wanted more and wanted it now,” Judge Kaye said.

Despite what the judge described as the “enormous emotional distance” between John Suggitt and his sister, the court heard they live just a few hundred yards apart.

He lives with his partner, Gemma King, and their young children at Wellfield, one of the family properties worth about £760,000. Caroline Suggitt lives in a bungalow called Penank, which was once home to their parents.

Judge Kaye said that, despite his disappointment with his son, “Frank was a Yorkshire farmer, not a lawyer” and “never entirely gave up on John”. It had always been his ultimate wish that his son should have the farmland and somewhere to live.

In the Appeal Court, Mr Jefferis argued it had been “wrong in principle” for Judge Kaye to award John Suggitt the lion’s share of the estate and a cash payment to compensate him for unpaid work he had done over the years would have been “more than sufficient”.

But, dismissing the appeal, Lady Justice Arden, sitting with Lord Justice Sullivan and Sir Nicholas Wall, said Frank Suggitt had given “unconditional” assurances to his son that he would receive the farmland and a house to live in when he died.

“Judge Kaye clearly found that the assurances included a place to live. He had no doubt that Frank did not want John to be homeless. I do not think that the judge’s finding can be said to be perverse”, Lady Justice Arden added.

email [email protected]