The son of a pig farmer who was pulled out of school to work on the farm has beaten his mum in a £1.4 million legal battle over the family land.
Barry Harding says he ‘continually worked’ at Cornerfields Farm in Denham, Buckinghamshire, since the age of 13, which prevented him from ‘going to school and achieving any educational attainments’.
His dad Trevor died in 2017 and he fell out with his mum Joan Harding soon after. She left the farm, going to live with her sister and brother-in-law, after claiming Barry had made her life there ‘unbearable’.
Joan later sued her son, claiming about £600,000 over accusations that he ‘excluded’ her from land and exerted ‘undue influence’ over her whilst getting her to sign her share of the family farm to a trust in 2008.
But after a hearing at Central London County Court, Judge Mark Raeside KC threw out Mrs Harding’s allegations and dismissed her claim for £600,000 compensation.
The six-figure claim was ‘unsustainable’, he ruled, but said that she would be due a much smaller payment – to be decided at a later date – for being excluded from the farmland since 2017.
The court heard the Harding family started breeding pigs nearly 80 years ago, beginning when the farm was run by Barry’s grandfather and carrying on under his dad, Trevor Harding.
Barry started working there under his dad and grandfather, sacrificing his education after being pulled out of school to help out with the pigs.
The farm stopped breeding pigs around 20 years ago after the foot and mouth disease outbreak, but Mr Harding said that since then he had invested over £500,000 to transform it into its current skip hire and cattle feed business.
The farm was bought by the family from the council in 2008, with his dad’s right-to-buy discount being treated as his parents’ contribution.
Their shares were then put into life trusts, entitling them to benefit from the farm during their lifetimes, but to then pass to Barry and his ex, Sarah Cox, on death.
However, Joan claimed the decision to put her share into trust was the result of ‘undue influence’ from her son, with her barrister Michael Barrow saying Barry had been in prime position to influence his parents.
‘He initiated the preparation of the deeds and settlements, found and instructed the solicitors and presented the documents thereafter,’ he told the judge.
‘Joan’s evidence is that both she and Trevor felt they had no choice other than to sign and execute the documents.
‘As Joan’s and Trevor’s son, all living together at the property, Barry was in a position to exercise control and undue influence over his parents.’
Barry, however, denied being in a ‘position of dominance’ over his mum and Mr Barrow accepted in court that evidence of actual ‘undue influence’ was ‘limited’.
Joan said she, her husband and Barry were in partnership, jointly running the farm until Trevor’s death in 2017 and that their son has deprived her of her share of income in recent years.
She claimed she had also put time and money into the business over the years, including her wages when she worked elsewhere, and asked the judge to invalidate the documents putting her share in trust.
Her barrister also asked the judge to award her a payment totalling around £600,000, representing compensation for being excluded from the farm since 2017, a share of profits and return of loans she said she had made.
In court, Mr Barrow quizzed Barry about his attitude towards his mum, claiming his behaviour was ‘bullying and intimidating and that you wanted your mother out’.
’You made her life unbearable,’ he put to him.
Barry denied putting any pressure on his mum, adding that she had voluntarily chosen to go and stay with her sister and brother-in-law.
He insisted his mum could have returned to the farm ‘any time she wanted to,’ although the barrister said this had proved impossible as Barry had changed the locks.
Barry contested the claims, saying the business had been of ‘no value’ when he took it over and that his parents had no money to contribute.
Ruling, Judge Raeside said Barry and his parents’ relationship had ‘irretrievably broken down’ just before Trevor’s death, aged 77, in 2017.
It had led to Joan wrongly relating the falling out back to the time her share of the farm was placed into trust in 2008, he found.
‘It was this behaviour which was transferred back to 2008 as if the same happened then,’ he said, finding: ‘There was no undue influence.’
The decisions made in 2008 had resulted in a ‘perfectly ordinary, not uncommon trust situation for a property,’ he said, adding that ‘they all benefitted from it, they received independent advice.’
Turning to her claims to a £600,000 payment, Judge Raeside said her bid for repayment of loans was ‘unsustainable’ because money put in by Joan could not be traced back to show they were loans.
Her claims for other payments were also ‘unsustainable,’ he said, but added she would be entitled to a much smaller payment for ‘occupational rent,’ Barry having had exclusive use of the farm since 2017.
‘This case should be assigned to a chancery trust judge, who can carry out a proper appreciation of the figures, which are certainly not £600,000 as proposed in this trial,’ Judge Raeside said as he dismissed all of her claims.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
