A 'greedy and entitled' daughter has lost a court battle with her builder brother over their mother's fortune after she 'frittered away' her money on meals at the Ivy, holidays and weddings, leaving him with 'almost nothing'.

Sandra Thomas, 65, has been ordered to repay £2.6 million to the late Jeanne MacDougall's estate, after she and her husband Lloyd - known as Philip - raided her bank accounts and were accused of persuading her to sign over properties to them.

The couple's extravagant spending meant at the time of her death she had almost no money left, effectively leaving her son Gary MacDougall, 70, with 'nil'.

Suing, Mr MacDougall failed to persuade the judge that Mrs MacDougall, wasn't in her right mind when she cut him out of her final will, made in 2011. His sister's lawyers argued there were perfectly explicable reasons for this, including his alleged 'marital infidelity' which was said to have annoyed his mother.

Under the will, the Thomases get the properties Mrs MacDougall owned at death, with Mrs Thomas inheriting the cash in her accounts.

But the previously almost worthless 'residue' of the estate - of which Mr MacDougall is entitled to half - will now be swelled by a Peacehaven holiday home and Ealing flats which they 'unduly influenced' Mrs MacDougall to sign over to them.

Mr MacDougall will also inherit half of the money they took, thought to be more than £1 million, while the three properties are valued at £1.6 million.

Judge Nicola Rushton KC ruled that acting out of 'greed,' Mrs Thomas and her husband misused more than £1 million of Jeanne's money as a personal piggy bank in an 'extensive and wholesale' way, using her accounts 'as if they were their own'.

'Suffice it to say, the misuse of Jeanne's bank accounts by Sandra and Philip was extensive and wholesale,' she said in her judgment.

'Jeanne's accounts and her assets were simply used by Sandra and Philip as if they were their own, without any regard whatsoever for any fiduciary duties, or even familial obligations to Jeanne.'

During the trial in February, the judge heard the MacDougall family fortune derived from the siblings' property developer father Alec MacDougall's 'substantial real estate portfolio.' 

Development properties were mainly bought up in the Acton and Ealing areas of west London, renovated and rented out, generating significant profits.

For Mr MacDougall, barrister Harry Martin claimed that it had been made clear to the two siblings by their parents that they would ultimately receive 'broadly equal financial treatment and inheritance.'

This included his father insisting to Mr MacDougall that he would not require a significant pension pot as he would inherit property on which to live on in his retirement, said the barrister.

Following his death, Mrs MacDougall made a will in 2008 which Mr Martin said amounted to a 'broadly equal' split between her son and his family on one side and daughter and son-in-law on the other.

Under that will, Mr MacDougall and his family would receive properties in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while Mrs Thomas got houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens, and most of the cash in her bank accounts.

But another will was then made in 2011, under which all four properties went to his sister and brother-in-law, while Mrs Thomas would continue to receive the majority of her savings.

The siblings would then split what was left, but due to the costs and expenses of estate administration, that was 'likely to be worth nil,' Mr Martin said.

Suing, Mr MacDougall, who had worked with his mother in the family business, claimed the will was invalid as Mrs MacDougall had by then 'lost almost all of her independence.'

The pensioner also lacked the necessary mental capacity due to dementia when she signed the will and did not properly understand its effect, he claimed.

And he also laid claim to a share of more than £1m of his mother's money, which he said was 'misappropriated' from her bank accounts before she died and spent by his sister and brother-in-law on themselves and their family.

This included splurging on meals at the Ivy, holidays, new cars, shopping trips and their daughter's wedding at the Savoy, he said.

For the couple, who are now estranged, Alexander Learmonth KC said they accept overstepping their duties under a lasting power of attorney (LPA) by spending Jeanne's money on themselves and their family.

However, he said it was essentially 'an advance on their inheritance' because most of her cash was destined for Sandra under both the 2008 and 2011 wills anyway.

They had not been properly advised about what they could do and believed they could deal with her money in the way they believed she would have wanted, spending it in order to reduce inheritance tax, he said.

There were perfectly explicable reasons why Mrs MacDougall had changed her will in favour of her daughter and son-in-law, who had looked after her in her old age, he added.

That included a sense of how well-off Mr MacDougall had become as owner of the family business and perhaps also his mum's 'irritation' with him due to his 'sharp words in the office' and his 'marital infidelity.'

But giving evidence, Mr MacDougall denied that 'a very brief fling' he had years ago lay behind his mum's decision to change her will, telling the judge she would have given him 'both barrels' if she was really annoyed.

Giving judgment on the case, Judge Rushton found that Mrs MacDougall's 2011 will was not tainted by undue influence, nor by mental frailness.

'Jeanne was genuinely very grateful to Sandra and Philip for the home and the support they had been giving her,' she said.

'It is unsurprising that she wanted to express her generous nature by rewarding them.'

But she ruled that their actions had depleted the value of the estate, which should have included the properties gifted in 2008 to the couple and the money they spent.

She found that the transfers of a £400,000 holiday home in Peacehaven, East Sussex, and two flats in Ealing, west London, worth about £1.2m were the result of their 'undue influence' on her.

'In my view, the likeliest explanation for the transfer of Peacehaven is simply that Philip and Sandra persuaded Jeanne to do it, probably over an extended period, and that justifications such as that Gary already had a holiday home in Cyprus, or had already 'had enough' from the business, were not so much Jeanne's as the ones they used to win her over,' she said.

'It is also in the nature of undue influence that it works in the shadows.

'The Peacehaven transaction in my view marked the start of a quite different pattern: transactions which favoured Philip and Sandra and their family over Gary and his family, starting in an unobtrusive way, but becoming increasingly unashamed over time.

'This was a pattern which gathered force in a manner which in my view was more indicative of greed and a sense of entitlement on the part of Philip and Sandra than of choices and efforts by Jeanne to achieve equality between her children.'

She said the same influence had resulted in the transfers of the two Ealing flats to the couple and went on to find that they were in breach of their duties under the power of attorney by spending Mrs MacDougall's money on themselves.

'I understand that the total of the sums spent through them was in excess of £1 million, although I have made no attempt to total them up,' she said.

'Mr Martin submits that there was a pattern of properties being sold for cash, the proceeds being paid into the accounts and then used not only for ordinary living expenses but also for more extravagant expenses, including cars, holidays, the two weddings, college fees for Sandra and Philip's children, and many cash withdrawals, among other things.

'Although Philip denied in cross examination that there was such a pattern, I consider that such a pattern is the most obvious conclusion to be drawn from an overview of the bank statements, especially as the only other apparent source of income for Philip and Sandra was rent from their other properties.

'The excuses made for this breach of duty do not make any difference. Ignorance of their duties is not a defence.

'In any event, the LPA explained on its face what the duties were. They had plenty of opportunity to clarify the position and to take advice, but they did not do so. This was deliberate misconduct driven by greed, for which there is no excuse.

'There was a clear cycle of emptying Jeanne's bank accounts, realising an asset to generate more cash, and then repeating the process again.

'No thought was given to how Jeanne's care would be paid for, and at her death she had virtually no cash left.'

She said an account would have to be taken of the money spent by the couple to determine what they must pay to the estate as compensation, which would then be split with Gary.

The exact value of the multimillion-pound estate has still to be calculated but the Thomases will still get at least double the £1.3 million Gary is in line for under the upheld will.

The judge rejected a claim by Gary that Sandra and Philip had wrongly influenced Jeanne into spending £500,000 on improvements to their home when she moved in.