A multi-millionaire’s earlier companion has truly knowledgeable a courtroom she was assured fifty % of the ₤ 18million London manor they shared all through a lunch within the Alps.
Christina Haynes, 44, that was simply 20 when she fulfilled Mark Austin, at the moment 70, divided from him in 2017.
She is at the moment suing him and the agency that has your own home on the High Court in an effort to win a ₤ 12 million fee.
The courtroom was knowledgeable the earlier pair began what Ms Haynes known as a “blissfully happy” connection after convention in 2000, and befell to have 2 kids.
After their break up, Mr Austin, whose lot of cash stood at ₤ 66 million in 2018, concurred on the Family Court to pay her ₤ 2.75 million to accumulate a brand-new house for her and the kids.
But the courtroom listened to Mr Austin by no means ever honoured the contract and Ms Haynes, at the moment the top of procedures at furnishings developer Hiroca, is suing him for ₤ 3 million– the ₤ 2.75 million he supposedly owes plus lawful bills.
House had by funding firm
She is moreover taking authorized motion in opposition to Hamersley Invest Anstalt, the supreme proprietor of the west London manor, to supply the ₤ 18 million house and supply her fifty % of the income.
Ms Haynes insurance coverage claims Mr Austin’s monetary funding supervisor ensured her at a mountaintop lunch in Liechtenstein in 2014 that she will surely get hold of fifty % of the residential or business property’s price if the pair ever earlier than broke up.
Cheryl Jones, her lawyer, knowledgeable the High Court that the supervisor, that was not referred to as, “assured her that she and the children were protected, that there was security for them and they could trust him”.
Ms Haynes claims that her standing as “equal beneficial owner” of your own home was formalised in a 2016 letter from Mr Austin to the belief fund supervisor.
“I’ve been to court with regard to this matter over 18 times,” she knowledgeable the courtroom. “These life occasions are scarred on my reminiscence, which have affected my desires and each waking second.
“I used to receive a significant fund of around £400,000 a year from Mark to use at my discretion. Everything was from Mr Austin at the time. I was highly dependent on him.”
In December 2018, Ms Haynes claims, she and Mr Austin concurred an authorization order below which he was to pay her ₤ 2.75 million to accumulate a brand-new house, and consented to her staying within the members of the family house until the brand-new residential or business property was purchased.
In October 2019, a Family Court courtroom affixed a chastening order to the approval order, because it had truly not been paid, along with better than ₤ 200,000 of lawful bills.
In 2020, the supervisor of the managing overseas belief fund behind Hamersley Invest Anstalt contacted Ms Haynes providing her notification to depart, as your own home was to be supplied.
But Ms Haynes acquired an order stopping her expulsion and in 2021 was moreover accredited billing orders price ₤ 3 million by the High Court versus the value of the residential or business property.
Property proprietor is counter-suing
Hamersley Invest Anstalt claims that it no extra has any sort of connections to Mr Austin and is counter-suing in an effort to require Ms Haynes away from the home.
Ian Clarke KC, its lawyer, knowledgeable the courtroom any sort of assurances made to Ms Haynes have been no extra binding resulting from the truth that the belief fund’s management framework had truly remodeled and Mr Austin was no extra connected to it.
Under interrogation, Ms Haynes confessed to the courtroom that she had truly not mentioned her useful fee of curiosity within the residential or business property in earlier Family Court procedures.
“I didn’t believe I was entitled to it at the time,” she acknowledged. “I believed I would be entitled to it in the future.”
Mr Austin “failed to file a defence” in case, lawyer Ms Jones acknowledged.
Judge Joanne Wicks KC scheduled her selection in case to be supplied at a later day.
