Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...
Discussion
Impasse said:
TVR1 said:
Nope. Quite ok. Ratger than read the Wail, perhaps read the full judgement. Facts matter, not opinions.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
That appears to be nothing more than a collection of "He said - She said" statements. No cash of hers (or risk) seems to have been put into the property.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
Impasse said:
TVR1 said:
Nope. Quite ok. Ratger than read the Wail, perhaps read the full judgement. Facts matter, not opinions.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
That appears to be nothing more than a collection of "He said - She said" statements. No cash of hers (or risk) seems to have been put into the property.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
XJ Flyer said:
Impasse said:
TVR1 said:
Nope. Quite ok. Ratger than read the Wail, perhaps read the full judgement. Facts matter, not opinions.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
That appears to be nothing more than a collection of "He said - She said" statements. No cash of hers (or risk) seems to have been put into the property.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
ked her over. In that rather horrible article doesn't the hero admit he was prepared to give the baddie more than the settlement awarded at the first hearing (nearly double in fact) but despite twice being ruled against at lower courts he appealed the whole case to the Court of Appeal?
He put a lot of faith in the no doubt expensive legal advice he was receiving to keep pushing the matter through the courts.
Perhaps the payment from the Mail will help chip into his legal bill.
FWIW legal protection in Common Law relationships and/or in co-habiting couples remains, on the whole, fairly $hit - despite the thrust of the angle put on this story by the Mail. Far too many find that out too late.
He put a lot of faith in the no doubt expensive legal advice he was receiving to keep pushing the matter through the courts.
Perhaps the payment from the Mail will help chip into his legal bill.
FWIW legal protection in Common Law relationships and/or in co-habiting couples remains, on the whole, fairly $hit - despite the thrust of the angle put on this story by the Mail. Far too many find that out too late.
Says it all for me. If you want to put a dick in it, marry her....
15. At the same time I am quite sure that there was discussion about her move and the consequences for her. He did reassure her that she would always have a home and be secure in this one. In evidence he accepted that he agreed to provide her a home, but he says only for so long as the relationship lasted. At the same time he never thought that the relationship would not last. He told that that he thought he was providing her with a home for life, but now the relationship has ended he has no legal obligation to her at all. In cross examination he had to resile from his assertion in the last sentence of paragraph 3 of his pleading. My judgment is that he thought he was taking on a long term commitment to provide her with a secure home, and said so to her. He made such reassuring promises as were necessary to persuade her to move (and thereby give up her own independence and security) in the knowledge and intention that she would rely on them.
15. At the same time I am quite sure that there was discussion about her move and the consequences for her. He did reassure her that she would always have a home and be secure in this one. In evidence he accepted that he agreed to provide her a home, but he says only for so long as the relationship lasted. At the same time he never thought that the relationship would not last. He told that that he thought he was providing her with a home for life, but now the relationship has ended he has no legal obligation to her at all. In cross examination he had to resile from his assertion in the last sentence of paragraph 3 of his pleading. My judgment is that he thought he was taking on a long term commitment to provide her with a secure home, and said so to her. He made such reassuring promises as were necessary to persuade her to move (and thereby give up her own independence and security) in the knowledge and intention that she would rely on them.
TVR1 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Impasse said:
TVR1 said:
Nope. Quite ok. Ratger than read the Wail, perhaps read the full judgement. Facts matter, not opinions.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
That appears to be nothing more than a collection of "He said - She said" statements. No cash of hers (or risk) seems to have been put into the property.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
ked her over. 
TVR1 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Impasse said:
TVR1 said:
Nope. Quite ok. Ratger than read the Wail, perhaps read the full judgement. Facts matter, not opinions.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
That appears to be nothing more than a collection of "He said - She said" statements. No cash of hers (or risk) seems to have been put into the property.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
ked her over. Having said that it seems obvious that he didn't tell her that he was living in rented housing with a low income.In which case,as I've said,it is my bet either she would have run a mile.Or possibly she would even have had the nerve to have raised the question as to why the 'mutual friends' had told her otherwise.In which case that would have been the clue for him to walk away from 'the party' pdq.
supersingle said:
TVR1 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Impasse said:
TVR1 said:
Nope. Quite ok. Ratger than read the Wail, perhaps read the full judgement. Facts matter, not opinions.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
That appears to be nothing more than a collection of "He said - She said" statements. No cash of hers (or risk) seems to have been put into the property.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1347....
ked her over. superlightr said:
Reading the whole article and trusting the c of a. I would agree she is entitled to something. She gave up work and a flat effectivly she was acting as a wife for 12 years which enabled him to prosper in his work as he would have done so with a wife.
You a woman ? Prosper?Howard Hughes prospered because he didn't have a wife...
Woman are just a distraction for men stopping them getting on with running the world which we do. If women ran the world it would descend into cat fights and crumble.
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.
It's been that way for a long time for anyone prepared to pursue it, especially if the partner who moved in to the other person's house can be shown to have contributed to the material value of the property (i.e. helped pay for upgrades/maintenance etc).
I guess most cohabiting people don't bother pursuing in the event of a split.
I guess most cohabiting people don't bother pursuing in the event of a split.
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.
Reminds me of "The Manipulated Man" http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Manipulated-Man-Esther...My mate got caught out like this!
NB I'm sure not all women fit those described in this book. Probably.
BoRED S2upid said:
Where are the young lads taking cougars to the cleaners? Come on PHs someone needs to step up and even the balance.
It is quite comical, the attitudes and the relationships people get into. In my world women are intelligent capable people, equals in other words, contributing a lot to the relationship. My wife, sister, mother and some friends are all like that, absolutely equals to their husbands and partners in relationships they may have.So the issue is not really the break up terms so much as the fact of him getting into a relationship with someone who seems to be in a different league economically and capably than he would claim to be himself.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff