A two-timing millionaire financier caught in bed with another woman has won £120,000 compensation from his ex after she banned him from their £1.6million weekend mansion with his other girlfriend.
Dr Chris Rowland, an Oxfordshire eco-business executive and a homeowner of nine bedrooms in Tadmarton House close to Banbury in Oxfordshire purchased the house in 2009. He planned on using it for weekend getaways with Sharon Blades.
However, Ms Blades found the City’s former analyst to be in an affair with another woman, and their relationship started to fall apart.
A court heard that Dr Rowlands was caught with his lover rival again at London’s penthouse, in 2011. Ms Blades made a’veto’ prohibiting him from going to Tadmarton House.
The ban on weekending at Tadmarton House lasted from 2009 to 2015, when Dr Rowland then split with the other woman.
Ms Blades and Dr Rowland fought in court to determine who owned the Grade II country home. A judge declared that both were equal owners and ordered it be split among them.
Though the financier paid the full price of the house out of his own pocket, a judge awarded him £59,958 to compensate him for lost time. He appealed that sum, asking for the figure to be increased to £216,199.
He has now been awarded £120,000 at the High Court after Judge Milwyn Jarman found that the veto had meant Dr Rowland lost the use of a ‘grand weekend and holiday home’ for those years.
Dr Chris Rowland (left) and business executive Sharon Blades (right) battled in court over the ownership of their £1.6million mansion after he cheated on her with another woman
According to the court, Dr Rowland was enchanted by Tadmarton House on 24 acres, where they intended to spend weekends or holidays, Ms Blades even said that they had talked of retiring.
Italianate villa, built 1830 on a hilltop overlooking the surroundings. One sideline idea of Dr Rowland was to grow elephant grasses in nearby fields.
Their ‘dream’ fell apart when she found out he was dating another woman in 2009.
In March’s ownership dispute, Judge William Hansen ruled that Dr Rowland continued seeing both women even though Ms Blades had discovered their affair in 2009. He commented: “He then continued to view both for more than one year, but Ms Blades unexpectedly dropped by his flat in the beginning of 2011 and found him in bed in his new partner.
The breakup of their relationship was caused by Ms Blades discovering Dr Rowland with another woman.
“There was an altercation which resulted Ms Blades accepting the police caution for assaulting her new partner, and Dr Rowland agreeing to a restraining or preventing any contact for several weeks with either of them.
At 65 Dr Rowland confessed to having continued seeing both women for several more months. He also admitted that he was not proud of this fact.
He said that he was emotional attached to each woman and wanted him to make a choice between them. It was difficult for him to do so.
Judge Hansen in March ruled against Dr Rowland. Rowland had claimed that Tadmarton House belonged to him alone since he purchased it from his pocket.
Judge said that he and Ms Blades took on the property jointly, but acknowledged: “In one sense, the outcome is harsh for Dr Rowland. He contributed all of the purchase price to acquire a country home to be used by a couple with their own properties who never thought it was a good idea to pool their resources.”
The judge found that the property was held in equal shares by both the husband and wife, and ordered its sale.
But he went on to award Dr Rowland just over £59,000 for his lost access to Tadmarton House between 2009 and 2015 when Ms Blades barred him from visiting with his new partner.
Dr Rowland stated that Ms Blades had vetoed him and his woman visiting the country house in 2009. He even wrote to him saying: “I would rather have it sold and have nothing than run the risk of her getting up there.”
“It was our place, and I would like to preserve that memory even though I can’t be there physically.”
Last month, Dr Rowland appealed the £59,958 award, asking Judge Milwyn Jarman QC to hike his compensation to what he claimed was the fairer figure of £216,199.
Paul Dipre (his barrister) argued that Dr Rowland was “effectively thrown out on weekends” and Judge Hansen wrongly assessed his loss.
In March 2009, Dr Rowland purchased a sprawling house with nine bedrooms called Tadmarton House near Banbury in Oxfordshire. He intended to make it a weekend retreat for him and his partner Ms Blades.
However, Ms Blades lawyers argued that her ex-husband’s damages should be calculated based on his “loss of enjoyment” of the weekend getaway rather than its rental value.
Judge Jarman, allowing Dr Rowland’s appeal, accepted that the loss of enjoyment factor was the primary issue, but decided the £59,000 pay-out was insufficient.
Ms Blades barred him from seeing his house with his new partner. Ms Blades, however, would not have objected to him coming down alone.
He explained the situation by saying: “Later, in 2009, Dr Rowland entered into a relationship. This was discovered by Ms Blades, who told Dr Rowland not to bring his new partner to Tadmarton.
“Dr Rowland was adamant that he would not do this, and held true to his word. Ms. Blades spent the majority of weekends during that period there. After Dr Rowland and Ms. Blades broke up in October 2015, there wasn’t any reason to prevent Dr Rowland from spending some time there.
“The Judge” decided to decline. So Dr Rowland only had access to the property for a couple of months after purchasing this grand property.
Judge Jarman said that the victim suffered a loss in his holiday and weekend home. It should not be regarded as a loss of rent.
“Dr Rowland’s Loss is, in my opinion, the loss of an excellent weekend and holiday home rather than a holiday lets,” he stated.
“Many people spend the week in another place and then return to their home each weekend for work. This is very similar to the intention of the parties when they bought Tadmarton House.”
He awarded Dr Rowland £120,000 compensation and rejected Ms Blades’ ‘cross-appeal’ which urged that her ex should only have been compensated to the tune of £36,000.
End