Businessman Lofty Surridge died in December 2016 leaving an estate valued at some $8.6 million. Daughter Anne on one side and son Paul with his wife Marion on the other battled over what happens to Lofty’s assets. The High Court ruled invalid a 2014 will on grounds of Paul’s undue influence. Lofty dies intestate because an earlier 2000 will has no beneficiaries; a trust named as beneficiary was wound up in the interim.
Complicating division of Lofty’s estate is a 2016 settlement reached after two days of mediation in which his children divided up Lofty’s assets whilst he was alive, but mentally incompetent suffering from dementia.
A tortured history of Surridge family relationships was spelt out in the High Court over six days of evidence. Lofty was described as an idiosyncratic and curmudgeonly individual. He was stubborn and manipulative. At various times in his life he had been estranged from a number of his children. His ‘favourite child’ was his cleaning products business; the Sturridge Group of companies trading as Philip Moore and Co.
After Lofty’s death, High Court litigation centred on events surrounding signature of the disputed January 2014 will; Lofty, aged 89, in hospital, seriously ill, sleep deprived and distressed signed three documents: a will drafted at Paul’s instructions which reduced Anne’s share of their father’s estate, a document handing control of his business to Paul’s spouse Marion with an option to purchase at $2.25 million; and an enduring power of attorney in favour of Lofty’s lawyer.
In court, the dirt flew between Anne and Paul. Anne referred to a 1998 court case involving a property dispute between Paul and his then spouse in which the trial judge said he was unable to accept Paul as a ‘wholly reliable witness’. Marion was subject of an Australian Securities and Investment Commission investigation in 2013 in which ASIC found as an investment adviser she had been dishonest with clients and had engaged in misleading conduct. Paul complained of the benefits Anne received earlier from their late mother’s estate, accusing her generally of dishonesty and deceit. In a 2018 court case, Anne had been found liable for intentionally disrupting Surridge business operations to the detriment of Paul.
Justice Clark ruled Lofty’s January 2014 will invalid. Medical evidence indicated Lofty suffered at the time from short term memory loss, declining cognitive ability and bouts of delirium. In addition, Paul exerted undue influence in respect of the 2014 will, she ruled. At the time, Paul was unaware an earlier 2000 will existed and did not know Lofty’s then wishes were to bequeath his assets to a family trust. Anne’s and Paul’s 2016 mediated settlement still stands, Justice Clark said. It states named assets are to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between Lofty’s five children. Since the family trust named in the earlier 2000 will no longer exists, Lofty died intestate without named beneficiaries. His remaining assets are to be divided equally between his five children under rules in the Administration Act.
Re: Estate Wilbur Surridge – High Court (30.07.19)
19.138