Page 236 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 235

32. The Claimant agrees to walk away from this litigation on the basis that the first

Defendant repays to him the money which he invested in her property and the money
which she accepts that he loaned to her.

33. This would put the first Defendant back into the position she was at the start of her
relationship with the Claimant: presumably she could sell the land which the Claimant

purchased in her name and she could re-mortgage the property in order to repay the
Claimant most of the money.

34. The first Defendant's Defence is confused and confusing. She seems to expect some

form of account to be taken of the costs of living which the parties spent whilst living

together. There is simply no justification for this approach. The court will be
considering the dealings between the Claimant and the first Defendant in connection
with the property. This is not a family court application in which the court would be

tasked with reaching a 'fair' outcome by reference to s.25 of the MCA 1973.

35. The first Defendant's pleaded defence is simply that the Claimant made gifts of
£619,528.38. This factual dispute may be beyond dispute resolution at a hearing when

the first Defendant is unrepresented but any guidance or assistance which the court
could offer may serve to reduce costs.

Housekeeping and case management
36. Neither party has filed any evidence.

37. The Claimant has produced a draft template for the trial, which should be listed with a
two day time estimate [D47].

38. There are outstanding issues of disclosure:
a. The first Defendant seems to rely on the outcome of the 2018 family
proceedings. The Claimant seeks disclosure of:

1. Her Form E
n. Her Replies to Questionnaire (if any)

111. Any open offer made in the proceedings
iv. Any WP or WPSATC offer made in the proceedings

8