Woman Loses Court Fight With Half-Sister Over £2.7m Home Eviction

A millionaire has been defeated in a High Court fight with her half-sister over their late father’s £2.7million country mansion.

Lindsay Bisiker, 50, brought legal action against her half-sister Judith Bisiker, 63, in a dispute over Moonhills, a six-bedroom property near Beaulieu in Hampshire’s New Forest, complete with stables, a tennis court and four acres of grounds.

The house was purchased in 1984 by their father, Jim Bisiker, a former Royal Marine who went on to make his fortune in the oil industry.

Lindsay, who described Judith as having acted like a “surrogate mum” during her childhood, argued that Moonhills had always been meant to be “held on trust” for the wider family, even though the property was registered only in Judith’s name.

She told the court the New Forest mansion served as her UK “home base” while she was at boarding school and continued to be regarded by her as her childhood home.

The family row intensified after Judith decided to sell Moonhills, but a judge sitting at London’s High Court has now ruled in Judith’s favour.

Lindsay claimed she was wrongfully shut out of the property in April 2023 after Judith arranged for the locks to be changed while Lindsay was staying there with her dogs.

She asked the High Court to rule that Moonhills was being held on trust for the family, to let her buy the house at a reduced price so it could remain in the family, and to award her compensation over the alleged eviction.

Judith denied the claim, insisting she was the sole legal and beneficial owner because their father bought the house in her name with the intention it would belong to her.

The new ruling rejects Lindsay’s suggestion the family home was held in trust and says it belongs outright to Judith.

Master Matthew Marsh ruled over the dispute between five adult siblings over the home bought by Jim Bisiker and registered in the name of daughter Judith. 

The judgment told of how a solicitor working on the purchase in 1984 remembered Mr Bisiker rejecting the idea a formal declaration of trust be drawn up with his children as beneficiaries.

Master Marsh also said that statements attributed to Mr Bisiker in 2023 could not be relied upon, due to his deteriorating mental capacity. 

She said changing the locks was justified to prevent Lindsay from frustrating the sale and accused her sister of becoming ‘obsessed’ with the property.

Lindsay’s lawyers argued their 95-year-old father always intended Moonhills to remain a family home and never wanted it sold on the open market.

Judith’s legal team disputed that, arguing any family use was an informal arrangement rather than a legal trust.

James Sandham, for Lindsay, in arguments presented at a hearing earlier this year, said Mr Bisiker had backed Lindsay’s version of events in written documents dating from 2016 to 2023 and in a witness statement.

Mr Sandham said: ‘Moonhills has always operated as a family base for the children to come and go as they please.

‘The children have not been required to pay any form of rent and Moonhills has generally been maintained by money provided by Jim.

‘The court should proceed on the basis that by evicting and/or excluding Lindsay from Moonhills and attempting to sell it, Judith has acted in breach of trust and contrary to Jim’s wishes.

‘Jim did not want the property sold – his preference was for one of his children to purchase it such that it remains within the family.

‘Consistent with the way it has always been used, Jim made clear that Moonhills should remain available for the use and access by the family, including for Lindsay’s ongoing occupation in it as her home.

‘The circumstances in which Judith evicted Lindsay on 29 April 2023 are particularly troubling. There was apparently no consideration of all the beneficiaries’ views.

‘Judith’s denial of Lindsay’s claim to have been in occupation at the time of the eviction is ludicrous… Lindsay’s dogs were inside at the window and Lindsay was permitted in to collect her personal items.

‘The terms of the trust are clear, having been agreed and understood by the family.’

But James Saunders, barrister for Judith, argued she ‘holds both legal and beneficial title, unburdened by any trust obligation’.

He told the judge: ‘Jim was born in 1929, lived in the UK for a period and emigrated to Canada in the 1950s.

‘In 1981, Judith, aged 21, moved to the UK after completing her studies in Canada. Initially Judith rented a small property, but her father felt she needed a more permanent home and a property search began.

‘Judith purchased Moonhills in 1984 and the property was registered in her sole name. Jim paid the purchase price.

‘Judith’s case is that she has always been and remains the sole owner of Moonhills. Jim purchased the property in Judith’s name intending her to be the owner in law and in equity… principally in order that Moonhills should fall outside his estate for inheritance tax purposes.’

Judith’s lawyer said Lindsay became increasingly determined to buy the home after it was considered for sale in 2021, claiming her interest turned into an ‘obsession’.

After Judith allegedly changed the locks, she then had lawyers order Lindsay to leave and later hired a security firm to change the locks again.

Lindsay claimed she was unlawfully evicted from what she considered her childhood home, arguing that Moonhills was always intended to be a family asset held in Judith’s name for tax purposes but effectively in trust for the wider family.

She told the court she lived there, kept her belongings and horse there, spent holidays there, and regarded it as a family home, with Judith acting as a surrogate mother.

While acknowledging a moral obligation to honour her father’s wish that relatives could use the house where practical, Judith said this did not give them ownership rights.

Her lawyer also said Lindsay was a frequent visitor rather than a resident and dismissed statements from their father supporting Lindsay’s claim, arguing he lacked mental capacity by 2023.