The Bull by Laurence Broderick in Birmingham’s Bull Ring Shopping Centre
(Picture: Getty Images)The world-famous sculptor who created “The Bull” in Birmingham’s Bull Ring has clashed in a £5 million court fight with his sons after cutting them out of his will and leaving everything to the National Trust.
Laurence Broderick, 87, had been close to sons Graeham and Roger before a falling-out in 2019, after which he disinherited them and changed the locks on the family home, a court heard.
Elder son Graeham sued for £5 million, arguing he had been frozen out of the family business after 20 years working with his parents. He claimed a share of his father’s artworks and copyrights as well as properties in Bedfordshire and the Isle of Skye. “I never thought I’d find myself in this situation. I trusted my parents,” he told the High Court.
Damian Falkowski, for Laurence Broderick, suggested the son had been angered by his father’s decision to leave everything to the National Trust, and this had “coloured your thinking in relation to this partnership claim”.
“It’s very upsetting, yes,” said Graeham. “We have been kind, decent sons. It’s not a very nice thing for a father to do.”
Bristol-born Mr Broderick is a sculptor of stone carvings and bronze casts such as best-known work, The Bull, erected in 2003. The court heard the feud began when Laurence’s wife Ingrid was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and was exacerbated when youngest son Ollie died in 2019 with Graeham and Roger “placing blame for that on Laurence by forcibly taking Ollie to Skye”.
Graeham told the court he had assisted with making sculptures since 1991 and, from 1999 until the “traumatic” falling out in 2019, was in a formal business partnership with his parents. He had worked up to 50 hours a week all year, he said.
His barrister, David Parratt, said there is a claim for a one third share of the father’s studios in Skye and Waresley, and the same share of his art and profits of the business until 2019.
On the cause of the rift, he pointed to “the infirmity and incapacity of Ingrid and her sons’ concerns for her welfare resulting in attempted interventions in her care” and “Laurence’s feelings of being attacked by his two sons”. Mr Parratt added: “It is submitted that these (motivations) are to be antagonistic, vengeful and spiteful and leave nothing of his assets and property to his two sons.”
Mr Falkowski argued that artworks, studio properties and copyrights were “capital assets temporarily lent to the partnership”. He said Graeham must prove he was a “joint author” of the artwork, telling the court “it is not sufficient for him to do routine work”.
Laurence was fighting his son’s legal claim, but after half a day of court evidence a settlement was reached. Details have not yet been made public.
