Legal News | 7.08.25
Marcus v Marcus and the meaning of children
The recent High Court case of Marcus v Marcus[1] is an important reminder of the difficulties (and disputes) that can arise in interpreting legal documents such as Wills and trust deeds.
In the case of Marcus, a discretionary trust was established for the benefit of the settlor’s ‘children’. Unbeknownst to the settlor, however, one of his two sons was the result of an extra-marital affair and therefore was not biologically speaking his own child.
Following a subsequent breakdown in the relationship between the two sons, one son (the biological son) claimed that the non-biological son should not be entitled to benefit from the trust as he did not fall within the definition of ‘children’ used in the trust deed.
The biological son was ultimately unsuccessful in his claim (on the facts, the High Court upholding the decision at first instance that the settlor had used the term children in a context where both his biological and non-biological son were intended to benefit from the trust and therefore fell within the meaning of children used in the trust deed). However, the case is a reminder that expressions such as ‘my children’, which are often used in both Wills and trust deeds, are more complicated than they first appear. When used in a Will, for example, the term ‘my children’ does not usually include stepchildren and unless care is taken to establish what this term means for each client, there may be very material consequences which arise from ambiguous drafting.
Given the rise in alternative family structures, as well as children born by methods such as surrogacy, this will be an area of the law which will inevitably evolve. However, to keep potential disputes at bay and ensure your wishes are carried out, it is always advisable to have your Will (and any other important legal documentation) drafted by a professional. Our Private Client Team at wealth@wansbroughs.com can help to ensure the drafting of Wills, trust deeds and other legal documents is as unambiguous as possible.
[1] Marcus v Marcus [2025] EWHC 1695 (Ch) (09 July 2025)
