A wealthy plumbing mogul must give his Lithuanian ex-girlfriend a £650,000 house, a London court has ruled.
The couple met in 2004 while she was working as a cleaner in the National Gallery. During their nine-year relationship, the 62 year-old bought her a Bentley worth £160,000 and the two of them would regularly go on holidays to places like Cuba, Alaska and Thailand. He also paid her an annual salary of £93,000 for a job which did not require any work, The Telegraph reports.
She has since become a businesswoman in her own right as well as a model. Soon after their relationship ended, she claimed that their £650,000 second home in Hertfordshire was rightfully hers as it had been given to her as a gift. She was listed as the sole owner of the property when it was first purchased in 2009.
However the businessman objected to his former partner’s assertion, insisting that, as he had paid the deposit and mortgage he should be able to keep the house.
In a hearing at the First-Tier Tribunal in London, Judge Ann McAllister ruled that the house had indeed been a gift. The man had often spent a great deal of money “on what might be described as fripperies”, the judge said in her judgment, and there was no reason she could find why the deposit used to buy the house and “further money to pay the mortgage” should be “put in a different category” to the gifts he had previously given. There was “no doubt” in the judge’s mind that the man had been “extremely generous [during the relationship] and that considerable sums of money passed through his hands”.
But since the breakup, the judge continued, he had “convinced himself that, from the outset, her intentions [had been] to get what she could out of the relationship financially”.
It was clear that his original intention had been for his 47 year-old ex-partner to “own the property legally and beneficially”, she declared.
He might be a million air, worked hard all his life.
Spent his monies as he wished.
This example shows how the courts are in favour of the female in all aspects of law…she contributed nothing now gained everything.
Typical British law…
Time this was shaken up and draconian legal systems brought into this century of common sense.
While not knowing all the facts that came to light, on the face of it, the decision by the LADY judge appears absurd. And it reinforces the growing view that, in order to right previous, historical wrongs, the courts are bending over backwards — and making today’s divorced men pay for the possible injustices of earlier generations.
.
Just because (allegedly, but often it did seem so) men were once able to have their way in the divorce courts, does not mean that the courts NOW have to swing back the other way and penalise the MAN. This is JUST as unfair as it was before — only the reverse! And the fact that this is happening over and over again nowadays SHOULD, by rights, have drawn the attention of the legislature. It is truly amazing that, in general, it hasn’t.
.
What are the lawmakers waiting for? Have they never heard of “scammers” — and WOMEN who, for instance, basically engage in visa fraud for the purposes of “cultural prostitution” — a quasi-legal term that appeared in the U.S. in the 90’s? (Google for it.) In this case I am talking about those who need to marry in order to stay with a partner (as without a visa they cannot stay in the country) — but do so with only short-term aims. That of marrying for the eventual purpose of divorce — and a nice, fat, settlement. Despite, in this case, having come from working basically as “domestic”. (A situation repeated with alarming frequency in places like Hong Kong.)
.
In this case, the couple weren’t even married — but the woman no doubt rejoiced in all the money being spent on her, and increasingly had her eye on what she might be able to get, once the relationship ended. Since they were not married, I am surprised she had any “entitlement” — even if she did have her name on the mortgage for the house. People, even rich people, don’t usually give whole mansions away — without some expectation, at least.
.
It could just as well have been PRESUMED that, as he HAD also been paying her £93,000 a year “for a job which did not require any work”, which must now have stopped, it was only good for the length of the relationship. ie., As long as they loved each other — and since he was paying (had paid) for the house, it still belonged to HIM. (Since they were not married, there was no possibility of a pre-nupt.) Just imagine, if SHE had been rich, and bought the house for HIM — would the court actually have awarded it to him, on breaking up??
.
The fact that it was interpreted as belonging to the man’s girl FRIEND just shows how the law is bending the OTHER way nowadays — and it is just as wrong THIS way as it was the OTHER way, years ago.
.
What is so interesting (or tragic) about this case is that the (I have to say it — gender-BIASED) judge asserted that the man “had convinced himself” that his girlfriend had only been out for what she could get — when it could just as easily be that he had finally realised what a fool he had been, and what she had long been up to! Clearly then, this is a FEMALE judge’s judgement!
.
How many more obvious injustices, like the ones we are constantly seeing nowadays, before those who are paid to ACT — DO so?? I am for a balance of power — not exploitation.
He put her name on the land register – and that in cases where the parties are not married should be conclusive – in EITHER direction. Subject of course to postponing sale during the minority of children.
I totally agree with Iridscence…
Just as he or she put it one big scam…So, if a man did the same what result would it of been..let’s say the female had all the assetts etc…bet the female judge still would of supported the female…
Typical…
You as they say, “could not make it up if you tried”..I should be more serious on this post but I just can’t in this case..Haha…
As soon as you have the following factual statement then for any sensible person that doesn’t try to adjudicate for ‘feelings’ in a court (which is a massive problem with parts of our law) it’s game over :-
.
—
“She was listed as the sole owner of the property when it was first purchased in 2009.”
—
.
He had to have done that as he’s paying for it all.
If he didn’t mean that to be a gift then that’s his problem as he has been very foolish – once again it comes back to BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR ONE’S ACTIONS.
.
Her personal morality may or may not be open to question but it is irrelevant here – she owns the property.
Agree with Luke on this…
No doubt it was a gift….and the recipient of the gift becomes the rightful owner.
However gifts can be taken back? ha ha… NOT