The dangers of cohabitation
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3303537/Ca...
25 year relationship.
1 child.
£0 financial input.
£275,000 pay out.
Kerching .....
25 year relationship.
1 child.
£0 financial input.
£275,000 pay out.
Kerching .....
PurpleMoonlight said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3303537/Ca...
25 year relationship.
1 child.
£0 financial input.
£275,000 pay out.
Kerching .....
After 25 years? Seems entirely fair to me.25 year relationship.
1 child.
£0 financial input.
£275,000 pay out.
Kerching .....
PurpleMoonlight said:
julian64 said:
You serious?
Absolutely.They weren't married.
She was not a joint owner of the property and did not contribute financially to it.
She was not an owner of the business, she was just a paid employee.
You really think that means she was just a freeloader.
You are alf garnet and I claim my £5.
julian64 said:
She stayed with him for 25 years, bought up his child. Forget what help she may have been in the family business.
You really think that means she was just a freeloader.
You are alf garnet and I claim my £5.
Did anyone force her to stay? Was it not her child too and did he play no part?You really think that means she was just a freeloader.
You are alf garnet and I claim my £5.
If people what the financial benefits of a marriage then they should get married. There are far to many people, women mostly, trying to argue for a financial settlement where no 'contract' exists.
PurpleMoonlight said:
julian64 said:
She stayed with him for 25 years, bought up his child. Forget what help she may have been in the family business.
You really think that means she was just a freeloader.
You are alf garnet and I claim my £5.
Did anyone force her to stay? Was it not her child too and did he play no part?You really think that means she was just a freeloader.
You are alf garnet and I claim my £5.
If people what the financial benefits of a marriage then they should get married. There are far to many people, women mostly, trying to argue for a financial settlement where no 'contract' exists.
I have no idea what circumstances have lead you to view the world in such a distorted way.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Bloody women. They turn up, move in, have your child, sacrifice their own career to bring it up, and then a quarter of a century later, so basically the first chance they get, they bugger off, and then have the nerve to expect a share of the accumulated wealth.
Indeed, women are full of sacrifices at someone elses expense.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Absolutely.
They weren't married.
She was not a joint owner of the property and did not contribute financially to it.
She was not an owner of the business, she was just a paid employee.
Did you bother to read the article? The judge disagrees with you and finds that she was not just an employee and that as a part-owner she's entitled to share in what was purchased by the profits of the company, namely, property. They weren't married.
She was not a joint owner of the property and did not contribute financially to it.
She was not an owner of the business, she was just a paid employee.
Daily Mail said:
Judge Mark Ball had rejected outright the retired lecturer's claim that Ms Woodward had been only a 'lodger' in their home and an 'assistant' in their business.
Mr Ashmore's evidence had been 'untrustworthy, partial and self-serving', the judge told Barnstaple County Court.
'His attempts to belittle all or any contribution by Ms Woodward are easily dismissed by what I find to be his quite extraordinary attempts to keep for himself the fruits of what were clearly joint efforts over a number of years,' he added.
Mr Ashmore's evidence had been 'untrustworthy, partial and self-serving', the judge told Barnstaple County Court.
'His attempts to belittle all or any contribution by Ms Woodward are easily dismissed by what I find to be his quite extraordinary attempts to keep for himself the fruits of what were clearly joint efforts over a number of years,' he added.
king matter what he drives? Knobslongblackcoat said:
Did you bother to read the article? The judge disagrees with you and finds that she was not just an employee and that as a part-owner she's entitled to share in what was purchased by the profits of the company, namely, property.
Yes the Judge rejected what were possibly facts. The article doesn't say if the business was Ltd, Partnership or sole trader. If the former proof would have been easy to provide so it was either Ltd with him the 100% shareholder or sole trader. So the Judge considered the business a joint effort. That doesn't mean it lawfully was.Daily Mail said:
Judge Mark Ball had rejected outright the retired lecturer's claim that Ms Woodward had been only a 'lodger' in their home and an 'assistant' in their business.
Mr Ashmore's evidence had been 'untrustworthy, partial and self-serving', the judge told Barnstaple County Court.
'His attempts to belittle all or any contribution by Ms Woodward are easily dismissed by what I find to be his quite extraordinary attempts to keep for himself the fruits of what were clearly joint efforts over a number of years,' he added.
Mr Ashmore's evidence had been 'untrustworthy, partial and self-serving', the judge told Barnstaple County Court.
'His attempts to belittle all or any contribution by Ms Woodward are easily dismissed by what I find to be his quite extraordinary attempts to keep for himself the fruits of what were clearly joint efforts over a number of years,' he added.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Yes the Judge rejected what were possibly facts. The article doesn't say if the business was Ltd, Partnership or sole trader. If the former proof would have been easy to provide so it was either Ltd with him the 100% shareholder or sole trader. So the Judge considered the business a joint effort. That doesn't mean it lawfully was.
Did the business provide profits to fund the house purchases? And did she provide more than just a 'paid employee' input?If so, the judge has quite rightly taken the view that the legal standing of the company/partnership etc is of no relevance, and that she's entitled to a share.
Up to you whether you accept this point of view, but I note that your views have zero support on this thread. Given this is PH, where such threads normally attract "snakes with tits" comments, that's some sort of record.
longblackcoat said:
If so, the judge has quite rightly taken the view that the legal standing of the company/partnership etc is of no relevance, and that she's entitled to a share.
Agreed IF they were married but they were NOT.Is it for a judge to retrospectively convert a legal employee status to that of a business owner to facilitate a ex partners financial claim?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff