A "greedy and entitled" daughter who plundered her wealthy mum's bank accounts to pay for holidays, meals at The Ivy and her own daughter's five-star wedding has been ordered to hand back £2.6m of her mum's fortune after losing a High Court will battle with her brother.But Sandra Thomas, 65, is still set for a multi-million pound inheritance after a judge rejected claims that her elderly mum, Jeanne MacDougall, wasn't in her right mind when she cut her son, Gary MacDougall, 70, out of her final will.Acting out of "greed," Sandra and her husband, Philip Thomas, had misused over £1m of Jeanne's money as a personal piggy bank in an "extensive and wholesale" way, using her accounts "as if they were their own," said Judge Nicola Rushton KC.On top of that, they had "unduly influenced" the pensioner into handing them three properties - including a family holiday home - together now worth about £1.6million.The judge upheld Jeanne's will - largely benefiting Sandra and Philip - but ruled that they must pay back to the estate the money they took, as well as the properties, or their values, a total of around £2.6m of which builder Gary is now entitled to half."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 Gary, barrister Harry Martin claimed that over the years 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 Gary 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 their dad's death, the siblings' mum 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, Gary and his family would receive properties in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while Sandra and Philip got houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens, and Sandra got 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 Sandra would continue to receive the majority of her savings.Gary and Sandra would 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, Gary, who had worked with his mum in the family business, claimed the will was invalid as Jeanne 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 mum'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.Gary MacDougall outside court (Champion News)Among other things, the money went 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 Jeanne 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 Gary 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, Gary 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 Jeanne'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 the actions of Sandra and Philip over the years 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 Jeanne's money on themselves."I understand that the total of the sums spent through them was in excess of £1m, 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."Philip Thomas outside court (Champion News)The effect of the judge's ruling is that the 2011 will stands under which Sandra and Philip get the properties Jeanne owned at death, with Sandra inheriting the cash in her accounts.But the previously almost worthless "residue" of the estate - of which Gary gets half - will now be swelled by the Peacehaven holiday home and Ealing flats, together worth about £1.6m, as well as the couple having to account for the money they took, thought to be over £1m.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 Sandra and Phillip will still get at least double the £1.3m 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.