The first wife of a multimillionaire ice cream tycoon has beaten his current Russian spouse in a bitter family inheritance fight over his £4.75m fortune.
Ernesto "Ernie" Colicci died of Covid in 2021, aged 66, having spent nearly 40 years carving out a London-based ice cream "empire" alongside his first wife, Josephine Colicci.
Ernie had arrived in the UK from his native Italy in 1982 "with a dream to sell ice cream", and over subsequent years created a business based around 35 sites across London's parks, operating a blend of cafes, boutique restaurants and vintage ice cream trucks.
The couple's two children, Rob Colicci, 39, and Rosanna Colicci, 36, both played roles in the booming family enterprise, with Rob going on to marry ex-Hollyoaks actress, Scarlett Bowman.
But Ernie and Josephine divorced in 2011, and in 2014 he married his second wife, Russian-born Nora Grinberg.
When Ernie died, his April 2017 will left his entire £4.75m fortune to Mrs Grinberg and their infant daughter, penning a letter telling his kids from his first marriage that he had given them enough money during his lifetime.
Mrs Colicci, 59, and her kids subsequently sued her ex-husband's widow, arguing that his £1.6m stake in the ice cream business should rightfully remain with his first family and go to Rob and Rosanna.
The family insisted that the dead tycoon's 40% stake in the family business, ECSI Ltd, was ring-fenced to be passed on to Rob and Rosanna, under an agreement they drew up together in 2016.
And now, Judge Mark Anderson KC has handed them victory at London's High Court, ruling that the 2016 agreement entitling his kids to the £1.6m shares still stood at the time he died.
Mrs Grinberg was sued by her husband's first family as the executor of his estate.
The siblings each already own a 10% stake in the family company and Rob is a director, with Mrs Colicci owning the remaining 40%.
Penelope Reed KC - for Mrs Colicci and her kids - told the court at trial that the case turned around the effect of a 2016 legal deed made between Mrs Colicci, Ernie and their two children, by which the parents "each covenanted to make a will" leaving their shares in the company to Rob and Rosanna.
From the witness box, Mrs Colicci told the court that she and her ex agreed in 2016 that their two children would inherit their company shares when they died, to safeguard their offspring's futures and the Colicci empire.
Mrs Grinberg's barrister, Angela Walsh, confronted Mrs Colicci with claims that she had referred to her as her ex's "Russian maid" in one conversation, suggesting this was a "derogatory term for an independent professional woman".
"Possibly," replied Mrs Colicci.
Ms Walsh argued that the terms of the 2016 agreement had been "wiped out" by a subsequent shareholders' agreement struck in 2017, which "superseded previous agreements" and which also distributed 10 per cent of Ernie and Josephine's shares to Rob and Rosanna.
She accepted that his shares should stay within the Colicci family, but said that, because they are part of the estate left to Mrs Grinberg by her husband, Rob and Rosanna should pay a fair price for them.
The barrister told the judge that Mrs Grinberg will face financial "hardship" if she lost her late husband's stake in the family company for nothing.
She had sacrificed a dynamic career as a chemical engineer running her own business to raise a family with Mr Colicci - with their daughter now aged six and fatherless, the court heard.
"The financial impact on his wife and daughter has been life-changing," said her barrister, adding that much of the fortune Mr Colicci left to them is in danger of being swallowed up by debts and "liabilities".
Following the birth of their baby, Mr Colicci had become determined to "provide for his new wife and child" - feeling that he had already done his utmost to support his two children from his first marriage.
He even left behind a "letter of wishes" making clear that he was writing Rob and Rosanna out of his will so that he could provide for Ms Grinberg, who gave up a lucrative business role to marry him and raise a family.
In his letter, he explained: "I love Roberto and Rosanna very much and my will is no reflection on how I feel about them.
"I have provided both of them with significant financial funds in their lifetimes, and I have set them up with properties, rental properties, and provided them with careers.
"They are independent adults now with financial security. I consider this more than sufficient financial provision for Roberto and Rosanna."
Giving his ruling however, the judge said: "In opening the defence, Ms Welsh told me that she would be submitting that Nora had materially altered her position by giving up a very successful career, in reliance on promises made by Ernesto to provide for her and their infant.
"Nora's financial position is not relevant to any of the issues which I have to decide."
He said that Ernie had first signed up to the possibility of the shares being left to Rob and Rosanna in an agreement penned in 2011, and the agreement had then been made obligatory in 2016.
The 2017 agreement had not superseded the 2016 one or absolved Ernie of the responsibility to follow it, the judge found.
"I accept Ms Reed's submission that the 2016 deed imposes obligations on Ernesto and Josephine as testators, and confers benefits upon the adult children as beneficiaries, which are different from the subject matter of the 2017 agreement, which concerns the rights and obligations of the parties as shareholders," he said.
"The 2011 agreement permitted a transfer of shares to the adult children on the death of a parent, but did not mandate it.
"The 2016 deed did not contradict or qualify this regime. It made mandatory upon Ernesto's or Josephine's death that which the 2011 agreement already permitted.
"Anyone reading the 2017 agreement with knowledge of the terms of the 2011 agreement would conclude that the purpose of the 2017 agreement was to change the 2011 regime to accommodate the introduction of two new shareholders and a new director.
"The 2016 deed could work alongside the 2017 agreement just as readily as it had worked alongside the 2011 agreement.
"In my judgement, Ernesto had no reason to think that the 2017 agreement superseded the 2016 deed and so probably did not think that.
"I think it is unlikely that he gave the matter any thought at all."
Nora's barrister had argued that an order that the company shares be transferred to Rob and Rosanna should be delayed to allow her to make a new claim for "reasonable provision" from Ernie's fortune.
But the judge refused to stay the order because no such claim had been and he was not satisfied that it would stand a "reasonable prospect of success" anyway.
