A millionaire has lost a High Court legal battle with her half-sister over their late father’s £2.7million mansion.
Lindsay Bisiker, 50, sued her half-sister Judith Bisiker, 63, over ownership of Moonhills, a £2.7million six-bedroom house with stables, a tennis court and four acres near Beaulieu in the New Forest, Hampshire.
It was bought in 1984 by their father Jim Bisiker, a former Royal Marine turned oil tycoon.
Lindsay, who said Judith acted as her ‘surrogate mum’ while she was growing up, claimed the property was always intended to be ‘held on trust’ for the whole family, despite being registered solely in Judith’s name.
She said Moonhills became her UK ‘home base’ while attending boarding school and remained her childhood home.
The dispute escalated after Judith decided to sell the property – and a judge at London’s High Court has now ruled in her favour.
Lindsay said she was unlawfully excluded from the house in April 2023 when Judith arranged for the locks to be changed while she was staying there with her dogs.
She asked the High Court to declare Moonhills was held on trust for the family, allow her to buy it at a discounted price to keep it within the family and award compensation for her alleged eviction.
Lindsay Bisiker, 50, pictured outside London’s High Court, has lost a legal battle after suing her older half-sister Judith, 63, over ownership of their family home in the New Forest
Judith Bisiker (right) and sister Heather Bisiker, who was not part of the dispute, outside London’s High Court after an earlier hearing in the row over Moonhills in Hampshire
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.
Pictured is the disputed £2.7million house named Moonhills, near Beaulieu in the New Forest
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.
Pictured is Jim Bisiker, an ex-Royal Marine turned oil tycoon. He bought the house in 1984
‘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.
