A furniture designer, Christina Haynes, has lost her fight in court for a share of the £18 million family home she once shared with her multimillionaire ex-partner, Mark Austin. Haynes had claimed that Austin promised her half of the property, a promise she said was made during a lunch in the Alps in 2014. However, the court found that the promises made were not legally binding.
Haynes, 44, and Austin, 71, lived together in the West London mansion with their two children before splitting up in 2018. Following their breakup, Austin agreed to pay Haynes £2.75 million to help her purchase a new house, but he failed to follow through.
Haynes then went back to court, asserting that during a 2014 meeting in the Liechtenstein Alps, Austin promised her half of the value of their family home. She claimed that a trust manager confirmed that the promise would be upheld and that she and the children would be financially secure even without being married.
However, after a lengthy legal battle, Judge Wicks rejected Haynes' claim, ruling that any assurances given to her during the meeting were not legally binding.
Judge Wicks dismissed Haynes' claim, calling the 2014 meeting an “elaborate performance” designed to make her feel more secure amidst a strained relationship. Despite Haynes’ belief that Austin’s intentions were clear, the judge ruled that there was no legal commitment to transfer half of the house to her.
The court emphasized that the promises made were not formal enough to give Haynes a legal right to the property. Though Austin and the trust manager may have intended to reassure Haynes, the judge concluded that these verbal promises fell short of granting her a legal entitlement to the house.
The case centered not only on the financial value of the property but also on Haynes' emotional and financial dependency on Austin. Having given up her career to care for their children and contribute to the household, Haynes believed she was entitled to a share of the property based on promises made during their relationship.
Throughout their time together, Haynes also invested £60,000 of her inheritance and took on responsibility for managing the household, which added further emotional weight to her claim.
Although Haynes lost her claim to half of the £18 million property, the court allowed her to remain in the house until alternative accommodation is found. This decision comes after her ex, Austin, failed to follow through on his promise to pay her £2.75 million for a new home, leading to further legal proceedings.
While Haynes’ emotional claim for fairness was rejected, the court's decision reinforces the importance of clear, enforceable contracts when dealing with substantial assets like real estate.
