A sports doctor who gave her mother a kidney to save her life is now facing off with her in court in a bitter £1m-plus family dispute.
Sports medicine specialist Dr Sonia Bains, 38, and her lawyer sister Sharn Bains, 29, are being sued by their mother Camilla Bains over ownership of an £800,000 house and £340,000 cash.
Central London County Court heard that Camilla has struggled with serious ill health for decades, receiving a total of three kidney transplants
The last took place in 2017, with her daughter Sonia – now a team doctor for the Football Association, having previously worked for Premier League and Women’s Super League clubs including Arsenal FC and Brentford FC – acting as donor.
Sonia took the step of donating a kidney after her mother told her that her “second kidney is failing and that she is dying,” the sisters’ lawyers told the court.
But eight years later, mother and daughters are now waging a “tragic” war in court, with their relationship having totally broken down.
Judge Nigel Gerald was told the family dispute centres on ownership of an £800,000 house in Rosehill Gardens, Sutton, and what happened to a £340,000-plus divorce payout that Camilla was handed after agreeing an order to end her marriage to the sisters’ father in 2019.
The pair had split in 2010, but the financial wrangling between them dragged on until it was finally settled nine years later, the sisters’ barrister Simon Calhaem told the court.
Camilla had formerly lived in the Rosehill Gardens house, but had wanted to move away because her ex lived nearby.
The house was taken on by Sonia in 2015 – she says “as sole legal and beneficial owner” – having bought it off her mother.
But lawyers for Camilla now say that a declaration of trust that Sonia signed around the time of the purchase left her mother as the true beneficial owner of the five-bed property, which was put up for sale two years ago at an asking price of £800,000.
Kamar Uddin, acting for Camilla, also said that £340,000 from her divorce settlement, which she transferred to the sisters, was only being held by them for her “on trust”. She is now demanding it back.
He told the judge: “The (divorce settlement) ordered a total payment of £340,000 to the claimant…and for the benefit of the claimant.”
Despite this, Sonia and Sharn advance an astonishing case that ‘the award’ so received was gifted to them.
“He said it was clear that Camilla was to be the beneficiary of the divorce award and anything paid to others was to be held on trust for her.
“It is incredulous for Sonia and Sharn to advance a case that the sums awarded/settled in favour of Camilla…were simply for the benefit of them,” he said.
“This is despite Camilla not working, having long term health problems, while Sonia and Sharn are graduates, lawyers and doctors.”
He also went on to say that Camilla claims she “was evicted from her only and primary home, Rosehill Gardens, by Sonia and Sharn by changing the locks.”
She claims that Sonia did not become the legal owner of the house and that it is still hers under a deed of trust her daughter signed in 2015.
Camilla is seeking an order for vacant possession of the house, plus occupation rent, £125,000 from Sonia and £240,000 from Sharn.
The sisters are fighting their mother’s claim, with Sonia insisting the house at the centre of the row is hers and that the 2015 declaration of trust was signed “under duress and/or coercion”.
They also say the divorce money was “gifted” to them by their mother.
Refuting the sisters’ arguments, Mr Uddin told the judge: “Sonia purchased Rosehill Gardens and denies her mum has any interest in Rosehill Gardens.
“Yet the purchase monies came from the claimant, the stamp duty came from the claimant, dealing with the estate agents and solicitors were at material times with the claimant.
“All other contemporaneous documents, such as planning applications, builders’ quotes, litigation with the builder, mediation with the builder who carried out work to Rosehill Gardens, was by the claimant.
“Mortgage payments came out of the claimant’s bank account.
“The evidence presented by the claimant strongly contends that the 2nd May 2015 declaration of trust was executed validly and without duress.
“The claimant provided substantial financial contributions towards the purchase, which the deeds substantiate.
“The contemporaneous documents and records further affirm the claimant’s beneficial ownership of Rosehill Gardens.”
Mr Calhaem, for the sisters, described the row as a “tragic piece of litigation.”
“The breakdown of the relationship between the mother and all of her children is well documented and evident by these proceedings,” he said.
“There was a time when the parties had a far better working relationship, demonstrated by the generous gifts made by the claimant and the generosity of Sonia in making loans to the claimant and even donating her a kidney after the previous two had been rejected.
“Those times are now long gone.”
The claimant is the mother of the first and second defendants…and sues her children on a very wide ranging claim, for breach of trust, vacant possession of their home…misappropriation of trust money, damages.
“In turn, Sonia seeks repayment of loans made to the claimant.”
He said the mother’s case was undermined by the evidence and that she had failed “in large part to identify recognisable legal claims against the defendants.”
He explained that the sisters are asking for their mum’s claim to be dismissed, Sonia declared 100 per cent legal owner of the Rosehill Gardens house and for their mum to pay Sonia £154,316.73 in repayment of loans she claims she made to her.
He said that documentary evidence showed that Camilla, while making the divorce settlement, had “gifted” Sonia £100,000 and Sharn £240,000, having “confirmed to the court that she would have no ‘legal or beneficial’ interest in the monies”.
Camilla had also had signed a declaration of trust, confirming she has no beneficial interest in Rosehill Gardens, the barrister claimed.
He dismissed the 2015 declaration of trust that Sharn signed as being invalid on the basis that she was “forced” to sign it.
The hearing continues.
