Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...
Discussion
In fact the woman sued for more than 28K, but that was what she was awarded. If the bloke had offered and paid at least that amount into court (this is called a Part 36 offer), she would not have been able to obtain her costs after the time for accepting that offer had expired. It appears (as far as I can tell) that he did not make a Part 36 offer. She may have applied for a costs order at a separate hearing, but that is normal when the parties are unable to agree on costs.
Breadvan72 said:
In fact the woman sued for more than 28K, but that was what she was awarded. If the bloke had offered and paid at least that amount into court (this is called a Part 36 offer), she would not have been able to obtain her costs after the time for accepting that offer had expired. It appears (as far as I can tell) that he did not make a Part 36 offer. She may have applied for a costs order at a separate hearing, but that is normal when the parties are unable to agree on costs.
So, as our hero didn't make a payment into court, we can assume that he didn't think her claim was worth anything, let alone the £28,000 which was awarded.In these circumstances, it seems reasonable that he pays the costs.
And then he appealed and was unsuccessful, and now has to pay a whole lot more in costs. All seems pretty reasonable to me.
I recently divorced after 19 years of marriage. For the overwhelming majority of that time, my partner was either at home bringing up the kids or working for a pretty low wage. While I was out earning the money, she kept the home, did a teacher training degree and now has a good job of her own.
When it came to carving up the assets, we just split everything down the middle. The fact that I earned the majority of the money seems pretty irrelevant. And I don't think the fact that we were married and not mere co-habitees made a blind bit of difference to the division of the spoils.
If you decide to share your life with someone for a decade, then it seems pretty fair that your respective financial worth should start to become entwined.
In this case, he seems to be sitting pretty in the house and has retained all of his assets. She has been awarded a relatively modest sum of money to return her to her financial starting point. He has taken the hump and run up a couple of very big legal bills which he could have avoided if he had made a fair payment into court.
There are two morals to this story.
The first is not to run up vast legal costs unless you are prepared to suck them up if you lose.
The second is that a life partner is a very big financial as well as emotional commitment.
It is very straightforward indeed. If you don't want the financial exposure that goes with co-habiting, then don't bloody well co-habit.
I must confess to having pretty limited sympathy for this chap. And his moaning about it in the Daily Mail lends little dignity to his plight.
That is pretty much how I see it, but for some here the case provides an opportunity to vent on the subject of how all women are materialistic, and so on. Perhaps the Mail renders a service of sorts to the perpetually outraged, by feeding their flames of indignation, but I'm not sure if it's good for their hearts.
PurpleMoonlight said:
What payment to Court is that then?
He didn't run up huge legal costs, he managed to keep his down to £20,000. His ex on the other hand managed to rack up more than double that, which he had no control over yet got lumbered with.
He had complete control over the costs situation.He didn't run up huge legal costs, he managed to keep his down to £20,000. His ex on the other hand managed to rack up more than double that, which he had no control over yet got lumbered with.
If he had offered her £28,000 and paid that sum into court, then from that moment onwards, he would not have had to pay a bean towards her costs.
A Judge decided her claim was worth £28,000.
He decided to appeal it and three more Judges also decided the claim was worth £28,000.
Why the hell shouldn't he have to pay the costs?
Breadvan72 said:
That is pretty much how I see it, but for some here the case provides an opportunity to vent on the subject of how all women are materialistic, and so on.
The word 'all' is one of your own choosing so to ascribe it to others is a bit rich. Speak for yourself Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps the Mail renders a service of sorts to the perpetually outraged, by feeding their flames of indignation, but I'm not sure if it's good for their hearts.
Perhaps the Journal of Evolution and Human Behaviour offers a service of sorts to politically correct types who imagine reality to be as they wish rather than as it is. You seem consistently vexed by the Mail and its readers, watch out for your own heart BV.What the published academic research had to say in the paper "The framing effect when evaluating prospective mates: an adaptationist perspective" was this, which is taken from the abstract with my added emphasis:
Sex differences in the framing effect within the mating domain (and the underlying negativity bias) were investigated. In three separate studies, men and women evaluated eight prospective mates, each of which was described using either positively or negatively framed attribute information. The key difference between the three studies was the temporal context of the relationship for which the mates were considered (long-term versus short-term) and the quality of mates that were presented to the participants (high quality versus low quality). Overall, women exhibited larger framing effects than men (and in three of the four experimental conditions), and this sex difference was driven by women's greater sensitivity to negatively framed information. This robust sex effect is a manifestation of the greater vigilance that women show within the mating domain (consistent with parental investment theory). At the attribute level, women displayed stronger framing effects than men in 10 of the 11 cases where significant results were found, and these were on attributes that accord with evolutionary principles (e.g., women exhibited larger framing effects for Earning Potential and Ambition while men yielded a larger effect in only one instance for Attractive Face).
10 out of 11 cats expressing a significant preference prefer the taste of fat wallet whiskas, but not all.
Pat H said:
He had complete control over the costs situation.
If he had offered her £28,000 and paid that sum into court, then from that moment onwards, he would not have had to pay a bean towards her costs.
A Judge decided her claim was worth £28,000.
He decided to appeal it and three more Judges also decided the claim was worth £28,000.
Why the hell shouldn't he have to pay the costs?
According to the article he had already paid her rent in her new place for six months, furnished it and bought her a new car when they parted. I cant help suspecting that if he had offered £28K, the court would have awarded £29K.... plus costs. Bearing in mind she was not suing for £28K but half the house, so there was always going to be a dispute. If he had offered her £28,000 and paid that sum into court, then from that moment onwards, he would not have had to pay a bean towards her costs.
A Judge decided her claim was worth £28,000.
He decided to appeal it and three more Judges also decided the claim was worth £28,000.
Why the hell shouldn't he have to pay the costs?
Edited by JagLover on Monday 20th October 17:46
A defendant to a money claim can offer a sum in settlement and pay Tha sum into a court account. The opposing party can accept the payment within a specified time, and on doing so can claim costs to that date. If the payment in is rejected but the court orders a lower amount to be paid on the claim, the paying party usually recovers the costs from the point at which the payment in was rejected. Tho system allows parties to limit costs exposure by making a reasonable offer.
Parties can also apply to costs capping orders, and in any event the court has to approve costs estimates pre trial in most cases.
Parties can also apply to costs capping orders, and in any event the court has to approve costs estimates pre trial in most cases.
Turbobloke, read the thread. Several posters make assertions about all women, you included. Mail readers are objects of pity and humour rather than vexation.
Your obsession with political correctness is entertaining, but the case in question has nothing to do with political correctness, the legal principle in play being gender blind.
Your obsession with political correctness is entertaining, but the case in question has nothing to do with political correctness, the legal principle in play being gender blind.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th October 18:12
Breadvan72 said:
Turbobloke, read the thread. Several posters make assertions,about all women, you included.
I've read the thread and your description isn't accurate, it's contrived purely to allow you to argue against it. Par for the course. To assist with pixel conservation, I've also read the judgement, so that kyboshes another possible suggestion in advance, thank goodness.Also you're still, it seems, deliberately confusing the anatomical, where 'all' does apply, with the connotational, where there is no assertion or claim that 'all' is applicable. I've cited the numbers from the JoEaHB paper's abstract and that is all as far as numbers go.
Breadvan72 said:
Mail readers are objects of pity and humour rather than vexation.
If you read the article in the OP are you now suffering from self-pity? I read more than one newspaper i.e. all free online editions plus the FT and cannot be labelled by one of the newspapers in the same way that I drive more than one marque and cannot be labelled that way either. Attempting to label people in either of those ways is simplistic and unhelpful, in effect it's another form of name-calling following on from the puerile 'neanderthal' slur and reflects a playground level of debate.Several posters ascribe characteristics to all women. The only anatomical reference I can recall is your highly scientific and in mo way pub rantish assertion that women know they are sitting on a fortune. I haven't suggested that you are a Mail reader, and I don't favour a single news source either, but there is such a thing as a Mail reader, and judging by the comments posted on the Mail website they don't seem the most relaxed types.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th October 18:28
Breadvan72 said:
Several posters ascribe characteristics to all women. The only anatomical reference I can recall is your highly scientific and in mo way pub rantish assertion that women know they are sitting on a fortune.
There you go again, sloppy and disappointing. My comment referred to the connotation, you should quote it then you wouldn't make such a basic mistake that makes it look as though you need a dictionary. As to the other posters thing, that's an easy accusation to sling about, how many uses of 'all women' did you count? Assuming you counted, before shooting from the hip.Breadvan72 said:
I haven't suggested that you are a Mail reader, and I don't favour a single news source either, there is such a thing as one of those, and judging by the comments posted on the Mail website they don't seem the most relaxed types.
OK thanks for the clarification. PH: precision matters 
It remains the case that labelling of such types is a weak argument amounting to name-calling.
turbobloke said:
There was always the anatomical connotation that women think they're sitting on a fortune, now it's been given a legal basis. Marriage has become increasingly unpopular for various reasons including the shafting that men get in a split, this judgement means it's very likely that cohabitation will go the same way.
There you are tb. Women (not some women, just women) know that they are sitting on a fortune. A tad vulgar, and a daft generalisation. You then appear to suggest that the legal ruling somehow supports the generalisation, when in fact it is no more than a gender blind application to a set of facts of a legal doctrine developed decades ago. NicD said:
Breadvan72 said:
Mail readers are objects of pity and humour rather than vexation.
people who say things like that are arrogant tossers, no matter how beautifully crafted their legal advice.Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 20th October 18:12
sugerbear said:
NicD said:
Breadvan72 said:
Mail readers are objects of pity and humour rather than vexation.
people who say things like that are arrogant tossers, no matter how beautifully crafted their legal advice.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff