Former NHS worker Sharon Duggan took her sisters to court over who inherits the family home – but a judge said it is ‘highly likely’ her court costs will wipe out her share of her mother’s estate
15:59, 09 Jul 2025Updated 16:00, 09 Jul 2025
Sharon Duggan has lost her inheritance to court costs(Image: Champion News)
A woman who sued her sisters in a bid to keep their dead mum’s £420,000 home has wasted her entire share of the inheritance on court fees.
Former NHS worker Sharon Duggan wanted to keep the home in Southgate, Crawley after the death of her 78-year-old mum Agnes who died in 2018 to live in with her support dogs. Last month she lost her fight to take the house and the judged agreed it should be split three ways.
Today, at a cost hearing at Judge Alan Johns KC said the ‘grim reality’ was that it would be ‘highly likely’ her court costs will wipe out the share of her mother’s estate she is rightfully due.
In the trial last month, Sharon Duggan took her sisters, alternative therapist Brenda, 55 and oldest sister Ann, 60 to Central London County Court.
Brenda Duggan outside Central London County Court(Image: Champion News)
Sharon – who told a judge she was “dyslexic and suffers from a variety of health issues, including chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder and also has long Covid” – claimed she needed the house for herself and her therapeutic rescue dogs, saying she is too sensitive for life in a flat.
She sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming “reasonable provision” above her one-third share of her mum’s money, claiming her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean she should get at least a life interest in the property.
Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and won, after Judge Alan Johns threw out Sharon’s claim. The judge accepted that Sharon has “particular issues,” but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as “suitable” accommodation for her.
The court heard that most of Agnes’ estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out.
She insisted that her needs outweighed her sisters’ right to get the inheritance they are due, also arguing that it would be hard to find alternative accommodation for both her and her two therapeutic dogs, which “help with her mental and emotional well-being”.
The home they were arguing over(Image: Supplied by Champion News)
Sharon claimed she “sacrificed” her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014, also arguing that her mum was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. As well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, she claimed to have spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes’ hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady.
In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that “psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again”.
“She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep. She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult.
“The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively.”
In the witness box she insisted that downsizing to a flat would be too much for her, telling the court: “I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive. A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. I would be better off living in a car, I couldn’t cope with it.”
Ann Duggan stayed neutral(Image: Champion News)
Sharon wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest, or alternatively an order allowing her to buy her mum’s old property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage.
But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, defended the claim, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a flat. Ruling against Sharon, Judge Johns said: “It’s my judgment that there has been no failure to make reasonable financial provision for her.
“I am not satisfied there was any promise that the property would be Sharon’s – and certainly not a promise that Sharon was confident would be carried out.”
He said Sharon had moved into her mum’s house while in an “excellent” financial position, although her finances are now badly depleted. She also lived with Agnes rent free and, although she had spent time caring for her mum while in declining health, the court’s role wasn’t simply to “reward meritorious conduct”.
“Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there’s no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate,” he said. “I don’t rule out flats as suitable accommodation,” he added, also noting that Sharon should be able to work once the court case is behind her.
“As to her ability to work I don’t accept that she is unable to work at all – or at least she will be after this litigation is dealt with,” he told the court, adding that Sharon herself had accepted in court that she hopes eventually to work again.
He also rejected her claim that Brenda was estranged from their mum towards the end of her life. “Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn’t permitted by Sharon,” he said. “That evidence included that her telephone calls were blocked and I accept all that evidence. This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of.”
At the hearing today, Judge Johns said: “This marks a sad end to a sad case. It is likely that Sharon will be left with nothing of the £100,000 or more that otherwise would have been her inheritance.
“That is the heavy price to be paid by her for pursuing this litigation to trial.”
He ordered that she pay the lawyers’ bills of both Brenda and their mother’s estate, with the totals to be assessed at a later date, but estimated at more than the £100,000-plus she is due to inherit.
Judge Johns added: “The grim reality of this litigation is likely to be that all of Sharon’s share will be burned up by the costs, so she will end up with nothing.”
Sharon was not in court for the costs hearing.