The daughter of a pensioner found dead at home with her husband has won a highly unusual £300,000 inheritance battle with her step-sister after a judge ruled he could not be sure who died first.

John and Marjorie Ann Scarle - who each had children from previous marriages - were found dead from hypothermia after police were called by worried neighbours to their Leigh-on-Sea home in October 2016.

No one knows precisely how the tragedy happened, but in a battle centred around a little used 100-year-old law, their two families were locked in a war over who inherits the house.

The family of whichever of the couple survived longest would be set to inherit the £280,000 house, as well as £18,000 in their joint bank account.

Now, after a High Court trial in June, Judge Phillip Kramer has said it cannot be ruled for certain who died first, meaning it must be presumed that Mr Scarle was first to succumb, because he was 10 years older.

The decision means that Mrs Scarle's daughter, Deborah Cutler, and her brother, Andre Farley, will inherit the tragic couple's joint assets, instead of their step-sister, Mr Scarle's daughter Anna Winter.

Anna Winter (left) and Deborah Cutler (right) were in a legal battle at the High Court to fight over the house and cash left by John and Ann Scarle after they perished in Leigh-on-Sea in October 2016.

It was the first case of its kind since the 1950s, with the most famous similar case dating back to the Battle of Britain, when a family was obliterated by the same bomb in Cheyne Walk, London.

Giving judgment, Judge Phillip Kramer said there were 'too many variables and unknowns' to allow him to say which of the couple survived longest in the house.

Mrs Cutler's barrister, James Weale, told the judge after the judgment was delivered that the case had been 'hostile litigation' in which his client was 'clearly the successful party,' having previously made a 'plainly reasonable' offer to share the estate.

'This claim should never have got to trial - it was always a case which cried out for settlement,' he said.

This illustrates the details of the legal fight, showing the process on deciding who died first and who would be awarded the inheritance in each instance

'For her part, short of capitulating, the defendant could not have done any more to resolve the dispute.'

The couple began their relationship in 1983 and bought their Eastwood Road home in 1988 using the proceeds of sale of Mrs Scarle's house in Westcliff Park Drive.

The law on deciding who died FIRST: A law to help determine who died when couples or families perished at the same time was introduced in 1926 but legal rows date back to 1793 in Britain. It is known as the ‘Commorientes Rule’ and has been used in the Second World War and other cases where couples or families died in the same incident, like a Blitz bombing for example. The Commorientes Rule makes provision for where two or more people die in the same circumstance and their order of death cannot be ascertained. If post-mortem examinations and evidence given to police cannot decide the question - then a judge will use the Rule, which always assumes the deaths occurred in order of seniority - ie the eldest person involved died first and the youngest last. For example, if person A was aged 60 at death and person B was 59, then if they both died in an incident and it was impossible to say who died first, then the law would presume that person A died first. This would mean that person B would inherit from person A’s Will and person B's family will inherit the cash. Like most married couples, the Scarles held their home as joint tenants. Under joint tenancies, when one dies, their share automatically passes to the other. In cases where it is not certain who died first, the Act in question sets up a ‘presumption’ that the older died first. Advertisement

Despite being ten years older, Mr Scarle, who died at 79, was his wife's full-time carer during the last decades of their life after she suffered a stroke around 1998.

Mrs Scarle, who went by the first name Ann and was 69 when she died, required a mobility aid to walk around inside and a wheelchair when outdoors, whereas her husband had no problems getting around the house.

Mr Scarle was last seen on October 3 or 4, 2016, when he spoke to a neighbour, saying he was 'getting the car ready for Ann,' suggesting both were still alive at that point.

They were found dead of hypothermia - Mr Scarle in the lounge, his wife on the toilet floor - on the evening of October 11, with the property in disarray. It may have been targeted by vandals or burglars, with windows broken and a door left ajar.

Mrs Cutler's barrister said it is likely that at least one of them was alive on October 7 - the date of their 26th wedding anniversary - because a card sent by Mrs Cutler was found opened.

The case reached court after Mr Scarle's daughter, Anna Winter, claimed that her step-mum probably died first, which would mean her dad briefly inherited his wife's share of the house, and then passed it to his daughter when he succumbed.

Her barrister, Amrik Wahiwala, said the fact her body was more decomposed than Mr Scarle's when police found the couple suggested that she had been dead longest.

But Mrs Cutler claimed the order of deaths could not be determined and that the 'legal presumption' is that her stepdad - the older of the couple - died first, meaning she and her brother should get the house.

'The events which took place between 3-4 October and 11 October 2016 are unlikely ever to be known,' her barrister, Mr Weale, told the judge.

'The most that one can do is speculate as to what might have happened.

The battle for the elderly couple's £300,000 inheritance centred on who died first in their Leigh-on-Sea bungalow (pictured)

Police taped off the property after the elderly couple died in October 2016 and also found the bungalow had been targeted by burglars

'None of the experts was able to express any view as to even the approximate date - let alone time - of the death of either of John or Ann.'

He said any determination of the order of death would be an 'inherently speculative exercise which involves weighing uncertain circumstantial evidence against uncertain pathological evidence'.

Other rare cases where families fought to prove who died first in the Blitz and a car crash Previous cases in which the Law of Property Act 1925 has featured include: Hickman v Peacey. In 1940, a high-explosive bomb landed on a house in Chelsea, killing all four people in a shelter in the basement. A number of the deceased had made bequests in their wills which would take effect only if the beneficiaries, also amongst the deceased, were to survive them. In the resulting 1945 case, judges analysed the meaning of the law when deaths are simultaneous. Beare vs Beare In 1958, a case reached court involving the deaths of a husband and wife in a car which had crashed and landed upside down in a ditch full of water. It was suggested that the husband had lost consciousness first and so the wife would have died first as she would have used up oxygen more quickly. The case was rejected by judges. Advertisement

The presumption that the oldest died first under the Law of Property Act 1925 is there to provide a solution in cases where it is 'uncertain' who survived longest, he said.

Ruling on the case, Judge Kramer said it hinged on micro-climates within the house because experts on decomposition said it could be said that Mrs Scarle died first if it was shown that it was colder in the toilet.

However, the room next door to the toilet had a glazed roof, which may have warmed it during the sunny days recorded locally around that time, he said.

It was also 'not safe to conclude' that the lounge was warmer just because it adjoined a conservatory, he added.

The lounge was a much larger room than the toilet, with walls adjoining a bedroom and next-door house, of which there was no evidence as to their heating.

'It follows that there are too many variables and unknowns to come to a safe conclusion as to the relative temperatures of the toilet and the lounge,' he said.

'The only evidence which could point unequivocally to the sequence of death is the relative differences in decomposition - but does it?

'I am left with two not improbable explanations for this effect.

'The first is that Mrs Scarle pre-deceased her husband, the second that the micro-environment of the toilet area was warmer than the lounge.

'I cannot discount the latter in the absence of evidence from which I could reliably reach such a conclusion.

'Accordingly, I cannot fairly draw the inference that it was the former.'

He found that the couple died of hypothermia at a point between October 5 and 9, 2016, but that it could not be said who died first.

Mrs Scarle, being the younger of the couple, must legally be presumed to have survived longer than her husband and so her children would inherit the house and cash in the bank.

The court heard that, separate from their jointly held assets, John left a personal estate worth £160,000, which goes to Anna Winter.

However, she has been ordered to pay the vast majority of the costs of the case, which are estimated at over £170,000.