Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...

[gvij]

In one way the judges are correct. Fact is if it wasn't for him she wouldn't have had and expected a certain style of life. Humans react poorly to taking what they consider their 'right' from them-history shows that.
It was morally wrong to give her all that expecting sex, 'love' and companionship in return and then perhaps because of her cattiness/ wandering (inevitable anyway longterm as history shows due to declining looks of her and her partner as well as nature then taking it all away-probably why all 'marraiges are doomed')
Once they have your cash and sperm/kids getting what they want obviously their attitude will change and this affects their partner then as they are no longer desired.
That's the crux of the problem. 28500 is /^uck all compensation actually. The 100 grand in legals is his fault.
The real problem is that he shouldn't have moved in with her or her with him when they were on a different level or if they did he should have at least considered giving her sufficient funds of his own accord for her to continue on.
Real men stand behind their promises, the judges bent the law as they realise this great unfairness. This is why men run the world...

This is why many women continue to remain married to their husbands not desireing them sexually while the man plays around with someone who does desire him and its accepted by all. If they liquidate him they only get half whereas if they stay married they continue to get richer every year as the half pot rises ie Hilary Clinton. Woman are tuff as old nails most men don't realise this to their cost.

Edited by gvij on Saturday 18th October 09:37

Edited by gvij on Saturday 18th October 09:39

[oldcynic]

He changed the locks and kicked her out of the family home. What was he expecting?!

£28,500 is not a fortune, it's enough to get her back on her feet renting and furnishing a house etc. From the tone of the responses here I was expecting the settlement to be well into 6 figures and leave him bankrupt (note - the settlement, not the fees. Surely he must have realised at some point that the fees were spiralling out of control? And if he could afford them then why not settle much sooner?)

[supertouring]

Don said:

On the face of it that is seriously fked up.

But we don't have all the facts. We weren't in the court when the decision got made.

A shame they had to fall out so badly over their break up that the lawyers got involved. Would have been much cheaper just to negotiate...

The facts are in the link post above.

[gvij]

oldcynic said:

He changed the locks and kicked her out of the family home. What was he expecting?!

£28,500 is not a fortune, it's enough to get her back on her feet renting and furnishing a house etc. From the tone of the responses here I was expecting the settlement to be well into 6 figures and leave him bankrupt (note - the settlement, not the fees. Surely he must have realised at some point that the fees were spiralling out of control? And if he could afford them then why not settle much sooner?)

Exactly , he actually did very well out of it. The judges were actually very fair imo. If he was married it would have cost him well over 300 grand if he had invested his money from his career wisely for his age and level. 28500 is nothing. The legals were his fault and should have been kind and settled with her fairly. Kicking her out of the family home isn't really the done thing.
I suppose any sane man would wonder what the point is of getting married. We aren't meant to be monogamous anyway so its all a lie in any case. I don't think you would ever want a dependant spouse unless you are willing to support them forever or the divorce courts will do it for you!

[anonymous-user]

Do PH'ers not think it important for people to keep their promises? This case was simply about that: keeping promises. The misogyny in here is predictable but depressing.

[gvij]

oldcynic said:

And if he could afford them then why not settle much sooner?)

Probably because he now dislikes her with a vengeance. Unfortunately her love for him faded as it always does and the fact that he wasn't generous in marrying her made her dislike him and that made him dislike her which is why he chucked her out and changed the locks. Pretty predictable...
He did very well out of it actually even with the 100 grand legals. He is a fool to not realise that.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

Do PH'ers not think it important for people to keep their promises? This case was simply about that: keeping promises. The misogyny in here is predictable but depressing.

The predictable allegation of misogyny is predicable and equally depressing.

Each case needs to be judged on its merits. In this case they're sparse. With invocation of this law surrounding a promissory position what about revising the law regarding breach of promise suits where an engaged man breaks off the engagement? If equality is what it's all about, this aint it.

If the person involved was male in a same-sex marriage the same comments would apply. The fact that one of the parties has a vagina is ultimately immaterial, but material to this case as it's one of the facts of the case. Noting that fact and sundry aspects of the real world surrounding that fact has nothing to do with misogyny.

[anonymous-user]

Can you really not see the misogyny in many of the posts above?

The law as to promissory estoppel is not new, and this case simply applies established principles to a set of facts. A promise of marriage is not by itself regarded as enforceable, but when people alter their behaviour based on promises, the promises may have consequences.

If the parties were married (regardless of gender), a different legal regime would apply, so your reference to a same sex marriage is not obviously relevant.

[Impasse]

Breadvan72 said:

If the parties were married (regardless of gender), a different legal regime would apply, so your reference to a same sex marriage is not obviously relevant.

However, they weren't married so that particular regime doesn't apply. There were no marital assets to divide.

[anonymous-user]

Er, yes, who said there were?

[Mojocvh]

Breadvan72 said:

Do PH'ers not think it important for people to keep their promises?

I have to agree with BV, life ain't a bed of roses, you have to take the rough with the smooth and carry on.

[Impasse]

Breadvan72 said:

Er, yes, who said there were?

No one, yet the comments seem to suggest that the legal protection and rights afforded by marriage are applicable to this couple. There's been more than one observation of "If they were married then xyz" but they were not married, so those comments are of no relevance to this situation.

[HenryJM]

One of the problems is that people confuse a number of aspects of marriage and yet you can be in such a contractual arrangement or no agreement at all. That is a little crazy, in this example the man appears to have provided accommodation in return, one assumes, for various services including a lot of practical ones from catering to who knows what else. All done over no real agreement at all.

All a bit daft really, if she was treated as an employee she would have more rights than it would seem she would do under many people's eyes.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

Er, yes, who said there were?

It was the same sex aspect - and male with it - that was the point, not the trifling extra reaffirming how equal life has become for paid-up members of the victim industry. Beyond that, misogyny is the hatred of women/girls, not justified criticism of one particular person who 1) happened to have a vagina 2) due to the generosity of her male partner was more qualified and better placed to pay rent after the relationship ended compared to before it started 3) seems to expect everyone to accept she believes that all relationships can and do break down...excepting her latest punt.

This snip derives from wise words surrounding more wise words from a wise woman telling the truth. There's no mysogyny involved, apparently, and why should there be merely for painting a picture of the real world using words and having somebody else summarise them. The link was posted earlier by steveatesh and is still clickable

In her introduction to this revised edition, (Esther) Vilar maintains that very little has changed. A man is a human being who works, while a woman chooses to let a man provide for her and her children in return for carefully dispensed praise and sex. Vilar's perceptive, thought-provoking and often very funny look at the battle between the sexes has earned her severe criticism and even death threats. But Vilar's intention is not misogynous: she maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

Do PH'ers not think it important for people to keep their promises?

It makes you wonder why divorce is allowed at all, sodding well keep those promises you lot!

Breach of promise (engagement) bit the dust years ago, only playing the misogyny card could resurrect it in this particular form so clinically.

As to the usual suspects rushing to defend poor defenceless women, you're doing them a disservice - women are more than equal and don't need head-patting.

[anonymous-user]

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....

Not misogynistic at all, eh? Nothing general about that comment, eh?

As for divorce, that often has financial implications for the parties, so there too promises have consequences.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th October 12:42

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

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....

Not misogynistic at all, eh?

Not at all. There was no hatred in the above statement, as is clear to anyone not desperate to play the misogyny card.

Descriptive text, nothing more than a precis exercise involving words from Esther Vilar's seminal book, has nothing to do with misogyny.

[RDMcG]

Its not that unusual in many places. In Canada for instance if you live with someone for two ( in some places three years) you are effectively married in terms of housing, and you cannot walk way. There are provisions in terms of assets accumulated priory to marriage, but effectively house is split and assets acquired post moving in are split. Provides some protection for kids that way.

I don't think its that unjust personally. People here know the deal and act accordingly. Interestingly the rate of marriage has declined but many people live together and have kids.
Common law spouses have rights to medical etc that they would get as married people if the spouse has family supplementary care. So, moving in with someone and simply blowing it off with no consequences is not on.

[turbobloke]

Prenups are gaining a hold in the UK if reports are accurate, this judgement shows there's a need for precohabs.

[anonymous-user]

Cohabitation agreements have been in use for several years, and will usually be upheld, absent some factors such as undue influence or duress. Absent such an agreement, the question is (broadly) what is fair and just between the parties. See Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53.