A bitter legal battle between two wealthy half-sisters has unfolded in the High Court, where both are fighting over ownership of a £2.7 million country mansion in the New Forest.
The dispute centres on whether the property was meant to belong exclusively to one sister or remain a shared family asset for future generations.
The case has also brought long-standing family relationships under scrutiny, with allegations of eviction, broken promises and conflicting interpretations of their father’s intentions.
Mansion at the Centre of the Legal Row
The property at the heart of the dispute is Moonhills, a six-bedroom home near Beaulieu featuring stables, a tennis court and approximately four acres of land.
It was purchased in 1984 by former Royal Marine and oil entrepreneur Jim Bisiker.
Although the property was registered solely in the name of his eldest daughter, Judith Bisiker, her younger half-sister, Lindsay Bisiker, argues that the registration did not reflect the family’s true agreement.
According to Lindsay, the house was intended to be held in trust so that it would always remain available for the entire family rather than become the private property of one individual.
Lindsay Claims Moonhills Was Always Her Family Home
Lindsay, 50, says Moonhills became an important part of her life from childhood.
While attending boarding school, she regarded the estate as her base in the United Kingdom and says she continued to treat it as home well into adulthood.
She told the court that she stored personal possessions at the property, kept one of her horses there and regularly spent holidays and extended periods at the estate.
Lindsay also described Judith, now 63, as someone who effectively acted as a surrogate mother during her upbringing.
Her legal team argues these longstanding arrangements reflected a family understanding that everyone would continue to enjoy access to Moonhills.
Dispute Intensified After Plans to Sell the Estate
Relations between the sisters reportedly deteriorated when Judith decided to place the property on the market.
Lindsay alleges that matters reached a dramatic turning point in April 2023 when the locks were changed while she was staying at the house with her dogs.
She claims she was prevented from returning, later receiving legal demands requiring her to leave, before security contractors allegedly changed the locks again.
She argues that the actions amounted to an unlawful eviction from what she considered her home and is seeking financial compensation in addition to court declarations concerning ownership.
Lindsay Wants Court to Recognise a Family Trust
Lindsay is asking the High Court to rule that Moonhills is legally held on trust for members of the Bisiker family rather than being owned outright by Judith.
She also wants permission to purchase the estate at a reduced price so it can remain within the family, claiming this would reflect her father’s longstanding wishes that the property should never be sold on the open market.
Her lawyers contend that Jim Bisiker consistently expressed that preference in written documents produced between 2016 and 2023, as well as in a witness statement submitted to the court.
Lawyers Say Father’s Wishes Were Clear
Representing Lindsay, barrister James Sandham argued that Moonhills had always functioned as an open family residence where siblings could stay without paying rent.
He submitted that maintenance costs were largely funded by their father and argued that Judith breached the family’s trust arrangement by excluding Lindsay and pursuing a sale of the property.
According to Lindsay’s legal team, Jim Bisiker wanted one of his children to acquire Moonhills privately so that ownership would remain within the family, rather than allowing the estate to be sold to outside buyers.
The lawyers also challenged Judith’s suggestion that Lindsay was not living at the property when the locks were changed, pointing to her belongings and dogs remaining inside at the time.
Judith Rejects Trust Allegations
Judith firmly disputes every aspect of her sister’s claim, maintaining that she is both the legal and beneficial owner of Moonhills.
Her legal team argues that Jim Bisiker deliberately purchased the property in Judith’s name in 1984 with the intention that she alone would own it.
According to her barrister, the arrangement also had estate-planning advantages by keeping the property outside Jim Bisiker’s estate for inheritance tax purposes.
Judith accepts that family members were welcome to use the house over the years but says those informal arrangements never created any legal ownership rights.
Defence Questions Father’s Later Evidence
Judith’s lawyers have also challenged the reliability of documents and statements produced by their father in support of Lindsay’s case.
They argue that by 2023 Jim Bisiker no longer had the mental capacity required to provide dependable evidence about events or intentions dating back decades.
The defence further contends that Lindsay’s interest in acquiring Moonhills intensified after the property was considered for sale in 2021, describing her determination to obtain the estate as becoming an “obsession.”
Wider Family Drawn Into the Proceedings
The legal dispute now extends beyond the two sisters.
Their parents, Jim and Brenda Bisiker, have been joined as parties to the proceedings, along with siblings Brian, Heather and Malcolm.
Although Heather has appeared outside court alongside Judith, she is not directly involved in the ownership dispute itself.
Court Yet to Decide Ownership
The High Court must now determine whether Moonhills was genuinely intended to be held in trust for the Bisiker family or whether Judith has always owned the estate outright.
The outcome will decide not only who controls the £2.7 million mansion but also whether Lindsay is entitled to compensation over her removal from the property and whether the estate can remain within the family as she claims their father intended.
The trial is continuing.
