What do Marcus Rashford and Manchester United have to do with the Private Wealth world? Nothing it turns out, but much like the confirmation of Marcus Rashford’s divorce from Manchester United as he joins Aston Villa on loan until the end of the season, the recent case of Marcus v Marcus [2024] EWHC 2086 (Ch) also received some tabloid interest albeit to a much lesser extent and with an audience of learned trust lawyers rather than red or maroon wearing football fans.
A few months after the judgment, Simon Goldring, Partner, and Emilly Williams, Associate, in our Private Wealth Disputes team have looked at the case and why we can draw some parallels between Marcus Rashford’s departure from Manchester United (for all intents and purposes a ‘biological’ child of the club, having joined the team at the age of seven) and a case which turned on the definition of ‘children’.
The claim itself
Stuart and Patricia Marcus had two sons, Edward and Jonathan Marcus. Stuart was a very successful toy and game manufacturer, who settled a discretionary trust in November 2003 for a class of beneficiaries that included “the children and remoter issue of the Settlor” and their spouses. Patricia settled a similar trust at the same time. Stuart died in 2020, believing that Edward and Jonathan were his sons (having been born during his marriage to Patricia). However, in 2010, Patricia told Edward, and the eldest son, that his true father was Sydney Glossop. Thirteen years later, Jonathan finds out that Edward is only his half-brother.
In summer 2023, Jonathan brought a claim arguing that Edward was not a beneficiary of Stuart’s settlement on the basis that he was not Stuart’s biological son. Patricia supported Jonathan’s claim, admitting to having an affair and providing DNA evidence to confirm Edward and Jonathan were half-siblings.
There were eight issues for the court to resolve but there were two from which the other six stemmed which were:
- (1) Is the court satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Edward Marcus is not Stuart Marcus’ biological son? And
- (2) does the word ‘children’ in the settlement include stepchildren?
With DNA evidence, the answer to the first question was quite straightforward - the Court found that Stuart was not Edward’s biological father. The answer to the second question was an issue of construction and the Court concluded that surrounding circumstances pointed overwhelmingly in favour of a wider meaning than biological child being adopted. A reasonable person, in knowledge of the relevant facts, would readily conclude that when using ‘children’ Stuart intended this word to be understood as meaning Edward and Jonathan. In light of the Court’s findings, there was no need to consider the remaining issues, and Edward was held to be a beneficiary of Stuart’s settlement.
What does it mean for the Private Wealth industry?
The case demonstrates the importance of precision in trust drafting. Ambiguities, particularly around terms like “children”, can lead to disputes, especially in complex family structures. Courts prioritise the settlor’s intentions and context over rigid definitions, reflecting the evolving nature of family relationships, but care should be taken and thought given to whether intended beneficiaries should be referred to by name rather than by class to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes.
As mentioned, a key factor was the settlor’s intentions. The Court was willing to look beyond the strict reading of the word ‘children’ at what Stuart knew, believed and intended. This highlights the importance of taking detailed instructions from clients and keeping a proper record of all meetings and conversations.
What next for Marcus (Rashford)?
And to Marcus Rashford…? Well, he has clearly had to navigate a complex family dynamic at Manchester United; he is no longer the favourite son, and whilst he is still a son for now (despite being on loan to Aston Villa), when he inevitably moves further afield in the summer, he may no longer be a child of the Red Devils at all.
