In the case of Dawes and Beedle v Dawes and Dawes (unreported), His Honour Judge Gerald has dismissed the claim of a son against his parents for cutting him out of their £101 million Euromillions win.
Dawes and Beedle v Dawes and Dawes
Case facts
In summary, the facts of the case were:
- In 2011, David and Angela Dawes won the Euromillions jackpot of £101 million.
- They made substantial gifts to friends and family, including £1.6 million to their son, Michael Dawes and his partner James Beedle
- Michael claimed he was told by his father he would “always be looked after” and purchased a £550,000 house, quit his job, and embarked on an “astonishing” lavish and extravagant lifestyle.
- Michael and James had spent the money by 2013 and after a drunken argument with Michael’s parents in which Michael demanded a further £5 million, the relationship came to an end, and further payments refused.
- Michael and James claimed for further payments from David and Angela.
Decision
His Honour Judge Nigel Gerald said in giving Judgement in the Central London County Court on the 18 May 2017 that the idea that Mr Dawes’ father would “cough up” whenever he was asked was a “strange conclusion”.
“There was no basis on which any rational or normal human being could conclude that they could go back for more money whenever they wanted.”
He added: “Michael was provided with the funds to have a comfortable life, but for his own reasons he chose not to take that opportunity. I therefore dismiss the claim.”
Comment
Whilst details of the case are all over the tabloid press, the full Judgement does not yet seem to be available. It will no doubt make interesting reading, and not only for the scandal.
I assume the claim was framed on the basis of an estoppel, but given what we know it seems to be hard to work out exactly on what basis.
Claims based on estoppel are for the court to prevent parties who have led others to believe in one thing going back on their words or conduct where it would be unjust, inequitable or unconscionable to do so.
I can readily find the alleged representation (that Michael would always be looked after) but how the Claimants may have tried to argue not giving him any more after he burned through gifts of 1.6 million in 2 years was unconscionable is harder to find.
How Nelsons can help
For more information, please contact our expert Dispute Resolution team on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.