Can a 'bootiful' life turn ugly? Bernard Matthew's case highlights the importance of making intentions clear in your will

Following the death of Bernard Matthews, the famous Norwich turkey farmer, in November 2010, a dispute arose in relation to his estate which serves as a reminder to those who own property abroad to ensure that their testamentary papers clearly set out what is to happen to their estate on death and the liability to inheritance tax which arises out of it.

Mr Matthews died owning 39 per cent of the turkey business he and his wife Joyce built from scratch. He was estranged from his wife for a period of 35 years before his death but he had never divorced out of loyalty to her. Despite Mr Matthews continuing to live apart from Joyce, they had adopted and raised three children - Kathleen, Jason and Victoria.

During the 1970s, Mr Matthews had an eight-year extra marital affair with a Dutch woman, Cornelia Elgershuizen who had given birth to his only biological child – George Frederick Elgershuizen. Even after this, Mr Matthews did not divorce his wife and Frederick and his mother returned to the Netherlands.

Mr Matthews had spent the last 20 years of his life living with his partner, Odile Marteyn. They had lived together in England and then in a villa in the south of France near Saint Tropez, worth €15 million at the date of death.

On his death Mr Matthews had left three wills: two French wills and one English will and codicil.

Under the English will, Mr Matthews left his £40 million residuary estate – most of it in company shares on trust to Frederick, now 29.

The English will included within its provisions a bequest free of tax of £1m to Odile. Moreover, it provided that the claimants, Mr Matthew’s executors, should pay all tax arising in consequence of his death, including French tax.

The first French will left all moveable property in France to Odile and the other French will bequeathed the villa, outright to her.

In leaving the villa to Odile, Mr Matthews had been aware that, by French laws of forced heirship, his children were entitled to 75% of the villa on his death, and that would leave only 25% of it to Odile. However he had hoped that his adopted children, who already owned substantial assets of their own, would not exercise their rights. He had left a letter to that effect.

Instead the adopted children ignored his wishes and chose to claim their share of the villa under French inheritance law.

The matter which arose was whether, by exercising their rights under French law, the adopted children were entitled, further to Bernard’s English will, to have their liability for the £2 million French inheritance tax now due discharged by the executors out of the English estate.

Judge Nicholas Strauss QC adopted the modern approach to the construction of wills – Mr Matthew’s intention could be clearly read not only by the will but also in his letter to the adopted children. He had wanted Odile to have the villa free of tax.

The Judge therefore declared that it was inconceivable that Mr Matthews, who was fully aware of the risk of his children exercising their inheritance rights under French law, could have intended that, should his wishes be disregarded, that they should also have their tax liability discharged.

The case highlights the difficulties that can arise in cases which concern difference jurisdictions and also the importance of making your intentions clear in your Will. Where property and assets are owned abroad it is essential to take proper advice in order to understand fully which legal system will apply to the construction of your Will, especially where countries exercise regimes of forced heirship.

If you require any advice in circumstances such as these, then our specialist team of contested probate and trust lawyers, including member of the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS) Kerry Hull, will be able to assist. Call now on 0330 818 3061 to speak to Kerry or one of her team.