In a landmark ruling at the High Court, Jennifer Scott, the widow and former cleaner of the late multimillionaire Richard Scott—known as the "car boot king"—has emerged victorious in a bitter legal fight against her stepson over the inheritance of a fortune potentially worth £43 million. The decision, handed down by Mr Justice Richards on Wednesday, October 29, 2025, dismisses all claims brought by Adam Scott, Richard's eldest son, and confirms Jennifer as the primary beneficiary and executor of the vast estate.
Richard Scott, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 81 from cancer, built his wealth through a combination of property development and operating one of the UK's largest car boot sales on his expansive farmland in Chelford, Cheshire. The site, described in court as "vast and sprawling," hosted the ITV television show Car Boot Challenge and was central to the family's business empire. Officially valued at around £7 million for probate purposes, Jennifer has argued that the land's true worth, including development potential and recent offers, could reach up to £43 million.
The dispute traces its roots to 2016, when Richard, then recently widowed from his first wife, married Jennifer, who is 28 years his junior. The couple had begun their relationship in 1994 when Jennifer was employed as his cleaner. They went on to have seven children together, adding to Richard's already large family. Richard fathered a total of 19 children: six with his first wife, six illegitimate children during that marriage, and the seven with Jennifer. This complex family dynamic set the stage for the inheritance battle.
Shortly after the marriage, Richard executed two final wills that explicitly disinherited Adam, his 62-year-old eldest son and former "favourite," whom he had previously referred to as the "golden boy." Under these wills, Jennifer inherited the bulk of the estate, including the farmland, with provisions also made for her two sons, Gordon and William Redgrave-Scott, and Adam's sister, Rebecca Horley. Adam, who had devoted over 40 years to managing the farm and car boot operations, was left with nothing from the final documents.
Adam launched his challenge earlier this year, suing Jennifer, now 60, in her role as executor. He contested the validity of the 2016 wills on two main grounds. First, he argued that his father lacked the mental capacity to make the changes due to a degenerative brain condition, likely dementia, which had begun affecting Richard by that time. Second, Adam invoked the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, claiming that he had relied on repeated promises from his father—dating back to a 1995 will—that he would inherit the entire farm in exchange for a lifetime of "hard and unrelenting physical work." Adam asserted that he had given up other opportunities to commit fully to the family business, expecting to pay the probate value of the land upon Richard's death, with the proceeds then distributed among his many siblings.
During the July trial, Adam's barrister, Constance McDonnell KC, painted a picture of a deep father-son bond centered on the Cheshire farm. "At the heart of this case is a relationship between a father and a son, their shared devotion to the family farm in Cheshire, and a recognition by the father of his son’s willingness to commit to a life of hard and unrelenting physical work," McDonnell told the court. She argued that Richard's dementia had "eroded his ability to make decisions and to have insight," rendering him incapable of validly altering the will. McDonnell highlighted instances where Jennifer allegedly acted as an intermediary, "translating" Richard's communications with others, suggesting undue influence or incapacity.
Jennifer's legal team, led by Alex Troup KC, countered vigorously. They portrayed Richard as a "mercurial character"—a "ruthless, single-minded and highly successful businessman" who had amassed a valuable property empire before pivoting to lucrative car boot sales. Troup emphasized that Richard was fully aware of his actions when disinheriting Adam, driven by a complete breakdown in their relationship. Key incidents included Adam's attempt in 2013 to have his father sectioned under mental health laws, prompting a visit from police and medics to the farm. In July 2015, Adam reported to social services that Richard was physically abusing Jennifer and the children, leading to an investigation that was ultimately closed without action. Richard, furious at what he perceived as betrayal, saw these events as thwarting his authority.
The marriage itself was contentious. On April 22, 2016, Adam appeared at the registry office to object, claiming Richard lacked capacity to wed. This led to Richard being assessed by four registrars and a local council lawyer, all of whom confirmed his competence. The ceremony proceeded as planned.
Jennifer's lawyers also undermined Adam's proprietary estoppel claim by noting he had already received land and property worth over £10 million during Richard's lifetime. They argued that any earlier promises were superseded by later intentions, and Adam had continued working on the farm despite knowing since 2003 that his father planned to renege on them. No detriment was suffered, they contended, as Adam's efforts were compensated through prior gifts and ongoing involvement in the business.
Mr Justice Richards, in his detailed judgment, accepted that Richard was suffering from a degenerative brain condition in 2016 but ruled that it did not impair his testamentary capacity. The decision to exclude Adam was "the product of a personality type that disliked being thwarted" and involved "careful measurement of how much his family members 'deserved' by reference to whether they had sought to thwart him or not." Crucially, the judge stated: "His decision not to make any significant provision for Adam cannot be explained as one that involved his normal human instincts and affections being perverted by his mental disease."
On the estoppel claim, Richards noted that while promises had been made, Adam was aware of Richard's change of heart as early as 2003 yet persisted in his work without detriment. The prior transfers of £10 million in assets further negated any claim of unfairness.
The ruling leaves Jennifer in full control of the estate, securing her position after years of family strife. It underscores the challenges of challenging wills on capacity grounds, particularly when the testator's personality traits align with the disputed decisions. For Adam, the outcome marks the end of a long-held expectation, rooted in decades of labor on the family land that became a symbol of both opportunity and division.
Richard Scott's life story, from property tycoon to car boot magnate, encapsulates a rags-to-riches tale complicated by personal relationships. His 19 children and multiple partnerships highlight the human elements behind the fortune. The case has drawn attention to issues of mental capacity in later-life decisions, proprietary estoppel in family farms, and the enforceability of oral promises in inheritance law.
Legal experts note that proprietary estoppel claims succeed only when reliance causes clear detriment, a threshold Adam failed to meet here. The judgment may influence similar disputes in agricultural families, where informal assurances often clash with formal wills.
Jennifer, heading to court with one of her sons during the trial, expressed relief through her legal team but declined further comment. Adam's representatives have not indicated an appeal, though the option remains open. The Cheshire farmland, once a bustling hub of commerce and family legacy, now passes firmly into Jennifer's hands, closing a chapter in one of Britain's most intriguing inheritance sagas.
