A millionaire financier who was caught in bed with another woman is fighting his ex-girlfriend in court for more compensation after a judge ruled they must sell their £2.5million weekend mansion and split the money.  

Former financial analyst, Dr Chris Rowland (65), bought the nine-bedroom Italianate villa’ Tadmarton House near Banbury, Oxfordshire in 2009. He intended to use it as a weekend getaway with Sharon Blades, 60.

However, their relationship was strained in November 1999 when Ms Blades (an eco-business executive) discovered that Dr Rowland had a new woman.  

Dr Rowland, who once raked in an annual income of over £1million, carried on seeing both girlfriends for more than a year until Ms Blades caught him and the other women together in bed at his London penthouse in 2011.

Ms Blades, who had previously issued a veto prohibiting Dr Rowlands from visiting Tadmarton House together with her love rival, agreed to a police caution for allegedly ‘assaulting his other lover’ by ‘ripping off their bedclothes’.

Dr Rowland, who has a PhD in Economics, was given a restraining order preventing contact with either woman for weeks, the High Court in London was told.

Ms Blades’ veto over Dr Rowland weekending at Tadmarton House together with his new partner had been in effect until October 2015. He then split with her.

In 2020 Ms Blades and Dr Rowland fought a court case over ownership of the mansion, with a judge ruling that they were equal owners and it must be split between them – despite Dr Rowland having paid the full price out of his own pocket. 

A judge had awarded Dr Rowland £59,958 to compensate him for his exclusion from the house between 2009 and 2015, but Dr Rowland is now appealing the award, asking for the figure to be increased to £216,199.

Paul Dipre, his barrister, claimed that Dr Rowland was thrown out for weekends and that Judge William Hansen had wrongly calculated the loss he suffered. 

Dr Chris Rowland

Sharon Blades

Dr Chris Rowland, 65, (pictured left) and business executive Sharon Blades, 60, (pictured right) battled in court over the ownership of their £2.5m Cotswolds mansion at London’s High Court after he cheated on her with another woman

Dr Chris Rowland and Sharon Blades had a row which resulted in complaints being made to the police. It was a humiliating end to Sharon's relationship with the man she hoped to grow old with in the £1.6 million Oxfordshire mansion (pictured) which was bought with a view to them retiring there together

Dr Chris Rowland and Sharon Blades had an argument that led to complaints being made against the police. It was a humiliating end to Sharon’s relationship with the man she hoped to grow old with in the £1.6 million Oxfordshire mansion (pictured) which was bought with a view to them retiring there together

The court heard Dr Rowlands and Ms Blades were enchanted by the ‘large and exquisite’ Grade-II listed country stack set within 24 acres.

Ms Blades stated that they wanted to “grow older together”. Dr Rowland also planned to plant elephant grass in the adjacent fields as an extra income.

Judge Hansen, who ruled on the ownership dispute at the High Court last summer, stated that Dr Rowland had continued to see both women after Ms Blades discovered the affair.

He said, “He continued to see both for over a year, but Ms Blades unexpectedly dropped by his flat in the first part of 2011 and found him in bed in bed with his new partner.”

In 2020 Ms Blades (pictured) and Dr Rowland fought a court case over ownership of the mansion

2020 Ms Blades (pictured), and Dr Rowland were involved in a court case regarding the ownership of this mansion.

“There was an altercation that led to Ms Blades accepting a Police caution for assaulting her new partner and Dr Rowland accepting the restraining orders prohibiting contact with either of them for several weeks.”

Dr Rowland, who admitted to seeing both women over several months, said that he was not proud of this fact.

He told the court that he was emotionally attached both to women and wanted to choose between them.

Dr Rowland stated that Ms Blades had’vetoed’ him and his new partner from visiting country mansion. He even wrote to him saying: ‘I’d prefer you sell it and have no than have the risk that she goes up there.

It was ”our place” and I would like to preserve that memory even though I don’t have it or am not able to physically be there anymore.

Judge Hansen decided against Dr Rowland in February 2013. He had insisted that Tadmarton house was his sole ownership, even though he had paid the full price from his own pocket.

Ms Blades and he had jointly purchased the property. However, the judge acknowledged that Dr Rowland contributed all of the purchase price to acquire a country home to be used as a weekend or holiday retreat. This was a couple with their own properties who never thought it necessary to pool their resources.

He ruled the property was owned equally by the couple and ordered it to be sold with the proceeds split down the middle.

Jude Hansen also awarded Dr Rowland £59,958 to compensate him for his exclusion ‘from the use of a jointly-owned weekend holiday home from November 2009 to October 2015’.

Ms Blades’ veto over Dr Rowland weekending at Tadmarton House together with his new partner had been in effect until October 2015. He then split with her.

But Dr Rowland is now appealing the £59,958 award, asking Judge Milwyn Jarman QC to hike his compensation to what he says is a fairer figure of £216,199.

This week, Paul Dipre, his barrister, argued that Dr Rowland had been ‘effectively thrown away for the weekends’ and Judge Hansen incorrectly assessed the loss he sustained.

Ms Blades lawyers insist that the ex-spouse’s ‘loss or enjoyment’ of the weekend retreat should be considered when calculating the compensation. This is in addition to the holiday rental value.

She wants the £59,958 awarded to Dr Rowland slashed to £36,000.

Thomas Roe, Ms Blades’QC, stated that Dr Rowland lost his money “non-pecuniary”.

“Essentially, it was losing the opportunity to use your house on weekends.

‘That amenity was not in the basic elements, such as the roof above the heads of the occupants, the kitchen to prepare and the bedrooms for sleeping in, etc.

‘Dr Rowland had these things in his own home. He lost the special enjoyment, the pleasure that Tadmarton House provided. It was and is submitted that Dr Rowland’s claim for enjoyment loss was properly analysed.

Judge Jarman declared that he would issue his decision at a later time after having heard the appeal case for half-a-day.