Three siblings are fighting to win back their inheritance after their dead father's second wife changed her £300,000 will so her biological son could care for her beloved parrot.
Ian McLean, Sean McClean and their sister Lorraine Pomeroy were cut out of the sum by their stepmother Maureen so she could make plans for her pet bird.
She changed her will in 2019, just 11 days after the siblings' dad Reginald died, to leave all her wealth to their son Brett McLean.
Brett, who goes by the title Lord of Hastings, describes himself online as "chairman, consultant, patron, trustee and president of national, regional and local business, charitable and voluntary organisations".
The 48-year-old man was last year sued by his step siblings in a bid to force him to split the inheritance between all four but Recorder Graeme Robertson handed victory to Brett at Central London County Court.
Now, the siblings are challenging this on appeal at the High Court.
Following last year's trial, Judge Robertson found that, despite Maureen's promise, there had not been "a contractual arrangement, whether express or implied, between Reginald and Maureen to the effect that neither would later change their will without informing the other or following the death of the other."
Reginald had "trusted his wife implicitly" and believed there was "no way" she would cut out her stepkids after he died, the court was told.
But Michael Horton KC is arguing in the High Court before judge, Sir Anthony Mann, that the county court judge got it wrong.
Yesterday, he told the judge: "Maureen said words to the effect that she would not change her will or disinherit her stepchildren and that she trusted her husband implicitly.
"Reginald died on 16 March 2019...his estate passed to Maureen.
"On 16 August 2019, Maureen executed a new will, by which she gifted her entire estate to Brett absolutely, thereby disinheriting the claimants in exactly the manner she had promised Reginald she would not.
"The judge (found) that no mutual contractual obligation arose between Reginald and Maureen not to revoke their wills, despite finding that Maureen expressly promised that she would not revoke the will and disinherit her stepchildren if Reginald predeceased her.
"The trial judge erred in law in holding that only a contractual agreement is capable of supporting a claim based on mutual wills....the contract requirement is both anomalous and capricious."
He argued that, despite not having an agreement on paper, the oral promise - after which Reginald made his will - could uphold a proprietary estoppel claim by the stepkids because Reginald had relied on Maureen's promise to his detriment when writing the will.
"The whole essence of proprietary estoppel is that promises...which would otherwise be revocable or capable of being broken with impunity because they do not give rise to a contract at law can give rise to legally binding obligations if the other party has relied on the promise to their detriment.
"The trial judge found that the claimants failed to prove that Reginald executed his will in reliance on Maureen's promise.
"He erred in law in placing the burden of proof on the issue of reliance upon the claimants rather than upon the defendant."
Brett, representing himself, told the High Court that Judge Robertson made the right decision and asked for the ruling to stand.
In his written submissions at trial, he had argued that his mum had good reason to leave everything to him, saying: "The defendant's mother left her entire estate to her only biological son - the defendant - so that he can continue to provide care for her green Amazonian orange-winged parrot and yellow and orange jenday (parakeet) and to continue providing housing for her son, as she knew the claimants all owned their own properties and would benefit from their mother's will when the time arrives, and because her son did not have a property or a family because he had devoted his life to caring for his parents as he felt morally duty bound to do so.
"The defendant's mother left her entire estate to her only living dependant so he would have shelter and a place to live whilst remaining a caretaker to her parrot and jenday. She would be able to continue providing for and protecting her son after she was gone."
Sir Anthony reserved his decision on the case to be given at a later date.
