High Court Bin Wife’s Claim To Regain Financial Control From Trustees

The widow of Michael Cowen, owner of plastics company Hanmere Polythene Ltd, and the innovator who introduced the black plastic bin bag to UK homes, has lost a High Court battle to wrestle control of her late husband’s estimated £16 million fortune from the various trusts he had set up to protect his estate after his death.

Following his death, aged 78-years, in April 2016, Michael Cowan used his will to set up trust funds to protect his estate from inheritance tax and ensure that his beneficiaries were not burdened with having to invest in a similar way themselves.

Despite being gifted over £400,000 immediately after his death and receiving a monthly income of £20,000, Mary Jane Cowan launched the High Court case, citing a ‘lack of security’ and anxieties of being reliant on a board of trustees to fund her lifestyle.

Despite being made the principal beneficiary, Mary Jane Cowan also admitted to feeling ‘confused and stressed’ about approaching the board for additional funds and felt that there was ‘very little by way of assets in her own name’.

However, Mr Justice Mostyn refused to overrule her husband’s up to date and valid will as it could ‘introduce a form of forced spousal heirship unknown to the law’.

Mr Justice Mostyn, presiding judge, commented: “The argument of Miss Reed QC is that because Mary Jane does not have outright ownership of the assets and therefore absolute control of them, she is – as she put it – ‘at the mercy of the trustees’, who could cut her adrift with no access to money at all.

“On many occasions, Miss Reed QC asserted that Mary Jane ‘lacks security’. I have to say that I completely disagree.’

“The argument that her husband should have left her in direct control of his millions was tantamount to saying that every widow has an entitlement to outright testamentary provision from her husband.

“This would, in effect, introduce a form of forced spousal heirship unknown to the law. Plainly this cannot be right.

“Michael was plainly devoted to Mary Jane and the terms of his will were expressly designed to meet her every reasonable need for the rest of her life.

“It must be possible for a testator to provide for his widow by a generous trust arrangement such as this without the fear that it will be interfered with at huge expense.

“I have to make the…assessment as to whether the trustees will honour Michael’s wishes and ensure that every reasonable need of Mary Jane is met until her death.

“There is absolutely nothing in the evidence to suggest they would blatantly defy his wishes.”

Do you agree with the outcome of the High Court case?