A Swindon man was cut out of his "dominant" mother's will after he told police he had been abused by his father as a child.

The man and two of his sisters became "estranged" from their family after they alleged their father had sexually molested them when they were children.

After the father was prosecuted and admitted indecent assaults on the two daughters, in the 1990s, he received a suspended prison sentence.

The mother knew "there was some truth" in the accusations against the father, but she felt that they had been exaggerated, Judge Paul Matthews said.

She was also furious that the the children had made the allegations public "when she thought the matter had been settled".

Her reaction was to cut them out of her will, leaving her entire estate, worth about £157,000, to her other children.

The father died in 2004 and the will remained unchanged when the mother followed him to the grave in 2013.

The three siblings went to the High Court in Bristol in a bid to challenge the will and claim their share of the inheritance.

But, rejecting their cases, Judge Matthews ruled that the mother was entitled to do as she wished with her wealth.

Despite the protests of one of her sons, she had decided to keep her will as it was, and "that was that".

The judge found that the mother was the "dominant partner" in the marriage and was not acting under her husband's influence when she made the will.

And even though her decision to disinherit the three children could be "criticised", it was not irrational.

She was not suffering from an "insane delusion" or the mistaken belief that her husband was entirely innocent.

He added: "In my judgment, the mother having capacity to make a will, she was entitled to decide not to benefit the three claimants under it.

"In circumstances where they were the cause of her husband having to face serious and potentially life-changing criminal proceedings, albeit justified at least in part, that was not irrational - even though I accept that not every parent would have behaved in the same way and some people might criticise her for doing so.

"But it was her property to dispose of, and her right to choose. The choice she made does not demonstrate that she must have been acting under undue influence.

"The other evidence shows that her husband was not putting undue pressure on her, even though I have no doubt that she took his wishes, or supposed wishes, into account in deciding what to do."