Top UN representative wins £500k will court fight after being labelled ‘narcissistic psychopath’ by late partner’s son

A former senior UN representative has been labeled a “narcissistic psychopath” by his late partner’s disinherited son, leaving him with a bill of £216,000 after winning a court case.

Property developer John Saville Thurston died aged 81 in January 2022, six months after suffering a massive stroke, leaving his entire £500,000 estate to his partner of five years, Hannah Shabathai, whom he met just months after his wife Elizabeth’s death.

But Ms Shabathai, 77, who worked for the World Health Organization for nearly 40 years and was awarded a WHO gold medal for her long and distinguished service, later found herself embroiled in a court fight with her son Jonathan Saville Thurston, 64.

Jonathan, who inherited with his sister under an earlier will made by his father in 2013, claimed that the 2019 will to leave everything to Ms Shabathai was invalid, alleged “undue influence” and that there was “substantial evidence of coercive control exercised by her over the deceased”.

Jonathan branded Miss Shabathai a “narcissistic psychopath” who “ruthlessly hunted” John Thurston before his death, his barrister James Poole told Central London District Court.

Denying all claims made on his behalf, he told Judge Nigel Gerald that he did not need Mr Thurston’s money because he was already “very financially secure and much wealthier than the deceased”.

Jonathan now faces a £216,000 legal costs bill after his case against him collapsed on the first day of a scheduled three-day hearing.

Mr Poole told the court John Saville Thurston was 81 when he died and was working as a property developer on the Wirral.

He and Ms Shabathai met in 2016, three months after his wife’s death.

“They met around April 2016 and their relationship developed rapidly over the next few months,” he said in a written statement submitted to the court.

“They began living together around January 2017 and effectively lived together as husband and wife for the rest of their lives.”

They initially lived in Geneva, where Ms Shabathai had a successful career working for the UN at the World Health Organisation, before later returning to London.

The pair drafted mirror wills in 2019 that effectively disinherited Jonathan and his sister, Katrina Thurston Lew; because his previous 2013 will would have made them his wife’s heirs if she died before him.

Although his new partner was already wealthy, Mr Thurston told his lawyers bluntly that he “chose not to provide any assistance for his children because he had given them enough money throughout his life”.

Ms. Shabathai became his primary caregiver after he suffered a stroke in 2021, helping hospital staff care for him.

The lawyer told the judge that when the relationship first began, Mr Thurston’s children “welcomed his presence in their father’s life and saw him as a kind and loving person”.

But he said they later “tried to rewrite history” by challenging the will, saying Katrina was initially a party to the case but withdrew just before the case reached court.

Mr Poole said Jonathan’s attack on his father’s will stemmed from his anger at Ms Shabathai, whom he branded “a narcissistic psychopath who ruthlessly preyed on the deceased”.

None of the “scurrilous” prosecution had any bearing on the 2019 will, he said, adding: “What the defendants instead have tried is to concoct a narrative that Ms Shabathai was generally coercive and controlling over the deceased and that the 2019 will was made in this context.

“This approach is at odds with the actual evidence in this case, particularly that the will was made at the deceased’s own instigation and his long-serving lawyers.

“The 2019 will was a natural outgrowth of John’s love for Ms Shabathai, as well as his complex relationship with his adult children. It was also made in the context of John making a will that left a much larger amount to himself than he had left to himself.

“Jonathan’s challenge to the preparation of the will on the basis of undue influence appears in fact to be little more than a reflection of his hostility towards Mrs Shabathai.

“There is no evidence of coercive control by him generally or in relation to the 2019 will.”

During his brief cross-examination of Ms Shabathai, John asked her about the issue of undue influence, which was her only objection to the will, and asked: “Do you accept that the 2019 will was prepared at a time when the deceased was vulnerable?”

“That’s not true,” the woman replied, saying that her partner was a lively and healthy man until he suffered a stroke in 2021.

“He was a man who made his own decisions, not a man who could be influenced,” he said, adding that he had no role in drafting his will.

“He was a pretty level-headed and fit man for his age, he had no worries at the time except his heart,” she added, also denying claims that he had discouraged John’s family from visiting him in the lead-up to 2019.

“Absolutely not,” he told the court. “I encouraged them, on the contrary.”

After personally cross-examining Ms Shabathai on the first day of the hearing, Jonathan, who represented himself in court, told the judge he was struggling with the case and should drop his claim.

“I can’t manage this, so I agree to stop,” he said, explaining that he has dyslexia and “neurodivergence” issues, which made it difficult to cope with the large amount of documentary material involved in the case.

Judge Gerald said the 2019 will in Ms Shabathai’s favor would now be allowed for guardianship in light of John’s “abandonment” of undue influence claims, and also noted that he had fought his case “to the bitter end” despite there being no real evidence or justification for his claims.

“Very serious allegations were made, but it was difficult to see any real basis on which to base the allegation,” the judge said, noting that the hearing was planned to last three days but was “abandoned halfway through the first day of the hearing.”

“Here – as I understand it – Mr Saville Thurston’s reasons for denying the allegation were that he accepted that there was no basis for it, but also that he was not fully prepared for cross-examination.”

He stated that “the claim has no basis whatsoever” and added that “the purpose of the will case is to resolve genuine disputes; it should not be used as a forum to pursue unfounded claims.”

As a loser, John was ordered to pay Ms Shabathai’s court costs, leaving him facing a legal bill estimated at £216,000, including £144,000 up front.

His sister, Katrina Thurston Lew, who dropped her objection to the 2019 will shortly before the hearing, was also held responsible for the cost bill until the date she withdrew from the case, even though she was given time to appeal the decision because she was not in court.