A woman has beaten her brother in court to win a share of the £9million left behind by her father. Jule Mate, 62, was furious when her brothers Andrew and Robert Mate were given all of their parent’s farm in West Yorkshire. After taking them on in court, Julie won a £652,000 payout. The land they inherited saw its value soar from £300,000 to £9 million. Julie was told by Robert “you’re not coming back” after she left the home to go to university.
Despite the fact that Julie had helped the family run the farm while growing up neither she or her sisters were given any share of the property.
In a letter to her mum in 2014, Julie even described the work on the farm when she was a child as “forced labour”.
Julie said she was left ” devastated and dumbfounded” when her father Donald left the farm to his wife Shirley and their sons when he died in 1992.
In a letter to her sister Virginia, Julie complained about a “male-dominated farming tradition.” She wrote: “To be extremely blunt, given the value of the farm – when dad died, but particularly now – we three have been extremely badly done to.
READ MORE: There may be ‘tax advantages’ of inheriting an ISA
“You can call it the outcome of a male-dominated farming tradition, bloody mindedness, or simply male chauvinism – whatever it was, and with no disrespect to dad, it really doesn’t wash nowadays.”
Part of the reason that the farm, where the family ran a milk bottling and retail business, grew in value was because Julie got the land removed from the Green Belt so it could be built on.
The court heard that, in 2012, Julie called her brother Andrew to inform him of developments on the property, saying the work was done “on behalf of the girl.”
Andrew then replied: “What’s it got to do with you?” Judge Andrew Sutcliffe KC added: “She described it as ‘his typical rant,’ which she understood to mean ‘push off, you silly woman’.”
The judge also said the brothers were “unjustly enriched” as a result of the inherited farm.
Julie said she did not have a good relationship with her brothers, adding that Robert once put his hand around her throat and told her “you’re not coming back.”
Both brothers deny the incidents occurred. The judge added: “Although Robert and Andrew denied or did not recall these incidents, I accept that they occurred.
“I also accept that from at least this time, and probably before then, the relationship between Julie and her brothers was strained, caused in part by the interest which Julie had shown in the farm and the brothers’ determination that she should not be involved.
“In her view, it meant the sisters were subsidising their brothers so that they could have a life on the family farm, which was something she was not given the opportunity to pursue.”
The judge added: “I accept Julie’s evidence that at no time did she tell either of her brothers or Shirley that she would work on this project for nothing, without expectation of any reward.
“Shirley, Andrew and Robert obtained the benefit of Julie’s services, at Julie’s expense, in circumstances where they had notice of the services, they knew that Julie expected a reward for her services, and they could have rejected the benefit, but did not.”
