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

A former cider company boss who set fire to his sparkling tycoon brother’s car after he outlived him in their parents’ will is facing a massive £875,000 court bill after suing and losing.

Alastair Bowerman, 57, went to court after receiving his one-third share of the £230,000 cash left by his parents in their will; Brother Ben Bowerman, 60, received the cash and shares of the 460-acre family farm on Dorset’s Isle of Purbeck.

The brother’s parents, Jean and John Bowerman, had originally made a will in 1988 to offset the fact that the family farm business on Godlingston Manor, near Swanage, would be handed over to Ben, splitting their money between Alastair and third brother David.

At the time, John’s inheritance was expected to be increased by the inheritance money he received from his own father; He also stipulated that this money be distributed in favor of Alastair and David.

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

But in 1999, Jean and John drew up a new will, giving Ben an equal share of their own cash and the cash they had received from John’s father, along with their remaining shares in the farm business, which had given most of it to him the year before.

Following John’s death in 2004 and Jean’s death in 2012, it emerged that the expected inheritance from John’s father had not gone to their estate, leaving them with only £230,000.

Alastair, whose Dorset Cider business closed a year after his mother’s death, became increasingly dissatisfied with the division of his parents’ fortune over the years, telling lawyers that he “did not accept the gift of the farm business” to Ben, complaining about “wrong events” and suspecting a “conspiracy”.

Relations between the two brothers deteriorated so much that in 2015 Alastair was given a conviction for arson and hit with a restraining order after “setting Ben’s car on fire”.

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

Last year, she went to London’s High Court, representing herself at a four-day hearing starting in April, where she, along with the professional administrator of Jean’s estate, sued her two brothers, who were executors of their parents’ will, claiming her father’s 1999 will was invalid for lack of knowledge and consent, and challenging her mother’s will because of Ben’s undue influence.

But although he was successful in his attempt to convince Master Julia Clark that he was too ill to fully understand what his father had done when he changed his will in 1999, Alastair lost his case because he delayed the challenge for too long. His claims regarding his mother’s will were rejected.

Now he has been handed a huge legal costs bill for the case that has repeatedly wiped out his inheritance, with Ben’s lawyers seeking more than £777,000, while his brother David and the administrator of Jean’s estate claim nearly £100,000 more between them.

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

The farm includes a Grade I-listed manor house, parts of which date from 1166, and a lucrative natural mineral spring.

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

In 1998, due to poor health, the couple transferred most of their interest in the farm to Ben; A smaller share went to the mineral water company of which he and his wife are now sole directors.

In his judgment last November, Master Clark explained how the brothers’ rift grew after John and Jean decided to change their will in 1999 to give Ben an equal share of their cash and remaining shares in the farm business.

In addition to the stroke, John also had intermittent attacks of heart failure, which landed him in the hospital.

It was during one of these events that he signed his new will, although he had previously discussed and drafted its contents with his lawyers.

After his father’s death, Alastair began to make it clear that he was unhappy with the division of the family fortune and contacted lawyers for advice several times over the next decade.

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

However, Alastair did not bring a claim challenging the wills until 2023, ten years after his mother’s death and 18 years after his father’s death.

In his decision, Master Clark said Alastair’s claim that his father lacked testamentary capacity when he changed his will in 1999 was well-founded.

The judge said none of the lawyers involved “made a formal assessment of John’s capacity” at the time he signed the contract.

“In my opinion, if they had spoken to the treating doctor that day, he would have told them that John’s current condition meant he was incapable,” he said.

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

However, he turned down Alastair’s offer to overturn the will, saying it had been too long delayed because he had known its contents since the time it was made.

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

“Therefore, the delay in filing the case is 18 and a half years.

“Alastair received legal advice in relation to his parents’ estate but took no steps to contest the wills. “He attempted to explain this by referring to his own health and the restraining order.

“As regards the first, in my view this cannot explain the long period of time before a challenge to the wills was brought. As for the restraining order, it specifically exempted communications through solicitors and therefore did not prevent a request from being made.”

“Therefore, I find that there is no appropriate explanation for the delay in bringing the claim and that it is… inexplicable.

“Therefore, in my view, Alastair has not given any justification for his delay in contesting John’s 1999 will.”

He rejected her claim because of the delay in the case and the prejudice it caused to other parties, and then also rejected Jean’s claim that diary entries showed she was subject to Ben’s “undue influence” when he changed his will.

He said the diary entries showed some feelings of conflict between himself and Ben, but “these entries date from five to six years after Jean’s will in 1999.”

“The 1999 will was made while John was still alive and Jean had his support. The diary entries were 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 as a result of any duress or that Jean regretted executing it.”

“Thirdly, and most importantly, in my opinion, none of the events described in the diary indicate that Jean was subjected to such pressure as to amount to coercion in the sense of overstepping his will.

“I am therefore not satisfied that Jean’s 1999 will was obtained through undue influence and that Alastair’s challenge to the will on that ground has failed.”

At a costs hearing last week the judge ordered Alastair to pay the solicitors’ bills for the case brought by Ben, his brother David, who works as a custom clock and furniture maker, and the professional administrator, with a down payment of £475,000 (total estimate £875,000).

The court was told that “the total costs to be paid will exceed the amount in the inheritance”.

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