Mother takes daughters to court after being left with ‘nothing’ in £1m family feud

Mother takes daughters to court after being left with ‘nothing’ in £1m family feud The trio suffered a ‘catastrophic falling out’ after the mother’s divorce - Bookmark A mother who claims that she was left with “nothing” after losing a £1m-plus legal battle against her high-achieving daughters has successfully secured a second hearing and will face them in court once more. The family – divorcee Camilla Bains and her daughters Sonia and Sharn – was once close enough for Sonia, a doctor for the FA and former Premier League clubs, to donate a kidney to her mother. However, they suffered a “catastrophic falling out” after Camilla's 2019 divorce. To maintain her means-tested benefits, Camilla transferred a £340,000 divorce settlement to her daughters. She also placed her £800,000 home in Sonia's name, setting fire to papers proving her own ownership. Camilla later sought to reclaim the house from Sonia and the cash from both daughters, but lost her initial court fight. She has now succeeded in bringing them back to court for a second time. Suing at Central London County Court, she claimed that the sisters had “colluded to make up a story” to keep her wealth. Meanwhile, Sonia branded her mother “motivated by greed” and “jealous” of her daughters' success in life. In March 2025, Judge Nigel Gerald ruled that Camilla had no claim to the return of the house and money, finding that she had got rid of her assets to keep her benefits, and then regretted it. But the case reached the High Court last week, where a senior judge granted her permission to resurrect the family fight over the house after hearing that she had been left completely penniless by the row. “It seems slightly odd and unfair that this woman has been left with nothing,” Camilla's barrister, Lexa Hilliard KC, told High Court judge Mr Justice Fancourt. During the 2025 hearing, Judge Gerald heard Camilla was divorced from her husband in 2011, but the financial wrangling between them dragged on until it was finally settled in 2019. As part of the settlement, lump sums payments from her ex did not go directly to her, but instead to her daughters. Although she had previously received the former matrimonial home, she had wanted to move as her ex was still living next door. A new house was bought in Rosehill Gardens, Sutton. The judge found that the five-bedroom property, which was put up for sale three years ago at an asking price of £800,000, was in her daughter Sonia's name, but that documents signed by the mum made it clear that Camilla was the beneficial owner. However the family fell out and a bitter court row erupted after Camilla laid claim to the house and the divorce monies. Rejecting her case, the judge found that an August 2019 note signed by Camilla showed that she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the house to her daughter Sonia and also burned documents relating to her ownership of it. “[The] mother was consciously divesting herself of her assets so as to retain her welfare benefits,” he said. The case returned to court last week, with Camilla's barrister asking for permission to appeal the county court ruling in relation to the house. Explaining why she took on the mum's case, she said that Camilla had been left completely reliant on benefits, adding: “She doesn't have any assets anymore. She has lost the property she had an interest in. “The variation of the financial remedy proceedings order meant that Sharn and Sonia received the lump sum payments paid by her husband.” Ms Hilliard pointed to the August 2019 note at the centre of the house dispute, in which Camilla wrote that she “no longer holds a 99.9 per cent beneficial interest” in the property. She said the wording was not a legal disposition of the property, but just a statement, with no evidence that she had in fact already relinquished her interest in writing, as the law requires. “The August 2019 note was not a disposition of property subsisting at the time of the disposition,” she argued. “What the note says is that 'I have disposed of my interest in the property'. In other words, what the document does is record ostensibly a disposition that's already taken place. “But there is no evidence that the mother, prior to the 2019 note, had disposed of her interest in writing. “It was never alleged and there wasn't a document in evidence that she had disposed in writing of her beneficial interest in the property at any time prior to signing this document.” She also argued that the August 2019 note did not identify Sonia clearly enough as being the one to which Mrs Bains' interest in the house was going. Granting permission for a full appeal of the judge's decision about the house, Mr Justice Fancourt said the arguments put forward were capable of success. “The test for me is not whether I would be likely to allow the appeal, but whether the arguments have a realistic, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success,” he said. “I am satisfied that they do just get across the line and I will therefore give permission for those grounds to be argued.” The case will return to court for a full hearing of Camilla’s appeal at a later date.