Despite the headlines in the mainstream media that Ms Ladwa, 43 has 'won' half of the £1.7 million home she shared with her partner of 16 years, this appears at first blush to be far from the legal claims advanced in the case of Chapman v Ladwa.
As yet the judgment has not been published but we understand that the home was in fact registered in the couple's joint names since 2008. There is a legal presumption therefore, that Ms Ladwa is entitled to half of the beneficial interest in the property. We expect the legal arguments of the case to surround Ms Chapman's attempts to rebut this legal presumption i.e. that despite the legal title being held in the couple's joint names, equity should not follow the law and the equitable interest in the property should not be split equally between the parties. It is entirely for Ms Chapman to set out her case and fight for a greater share of the couple's former home.
It is also suggested in the press that Ms Chapman claimed the only reason she transferred the property into the couple's joint names was because Ms Ladwa unduly influenced her to do so, or in other words as is reported in the press, due to her "ex's incessant nagging". We understand that the claim in undue influence was rejected by the court.
We, along with many others in the legal Twittersphere, look forward to reading the full judgment.