The couple lived together and Mr Southwell paid the mortgage, court heard

An unmarried woman yesterday won a share of her ex-boyfriend’s money after they split.

Catherine Blackburn will get £28,500 from the man with whom she shared a house in a landmark court ruling for cohabiting couples.

Appeal Court judges said the 54-year-old deserved support because she had been promised a ‘home for life’ by insurance manager David Southwell – who then left her homeless by changing the locks after they broke up.

David Southwell and his ex-girlfriend Catherine Blackburn pictured on holiday before they split up. He has been ordered to pay Miss Blackburn £28,500 in a landmark legal decision for unmarried couples

Even though he paid for the mortgage on the £240,000 home, justices said she was ‘effectively a wife’ and sacrificed the value of her own property when she moved in with him.

The case comes as senior judges are calling for new legal rights for cohabitees who can be left without a home and out of pocket when a relationship ends.

But it leaves men who live with partners facing the prospect of having to pay compensation to a girlfriend if they break up.

Yesterday Mr Southwell, 55, called the ruling ‘ridiculous’, claiming he had single-handedly funded their lifestyle.

‘I paid for virtually everything and she did not put a penny towards the house,’ he said. ‘I paid her mobile phone bill. I bought her a brand new car.

‘She went to university because she wanted to study to be a speech and language therapist. She doubled her salary as a result of the degree. Whilst she was at university I was putting £500 a month into her account.

The couple lived in a £240,000 house for which Mr Southwell paid the mortgage however the court heard Miss Blackburn was 'effectively a wife'

Mr Southwell described the case as 'ridiculous' and claimed it could 'open the floodgates' to other unmarried couples

FIGHT TO CHANGE THE LAW Lawyers have pressed for two decades for cohabitees to have the same rights as married couples. The Law Commission says a childless couple should be bound to support each other after living together for five years. But critics say it would unfairly bind people together and prove costly for those involved in litigation – and governments have so far declined to act. James Brown of JMW Solicitors described yesterday’s judgment as a ‘significant development’. He added: ‘What is important about this ruling is not just that it might make it easier to succeed with this kind of claim in the future. ‘It might act as something of a temptation for cohabitees who had possibly not considered legal redress once their relationships break down.’ It could also give couples ‘a reason to think again’ about living together, added Mr Brown. Advertisement

‘It has been ridiculous. The case has now cost me more than £100,000, including my costs, just to give her £28,500.’

He added: ‘I think it is a wake-up call for all cohabiting couples. It could open the floodgates.’

The pair met in 2000 and decided to move in together two years later.

They made a joint decision, the courts decided, to buy a house in Droitwich with £140,000 of Mr Southwell’s money and a £100,000 mortgage in his name, which he paid.

Judges heard that Mr Southwell did not want to marry because he did not want to have to pay maintenance in the event of a break-up.

Instead, the court found, he assured Miss Blackburn and her two daughters from an earlier marriage they would always have a home – although he insists that meant as long as the relationship lasted.

Lord Justice Tomlinson, sitting with Lord Justice McFarlane and Lady Justice Macur, said Miss Blackburn enjoyed benefits including a ‘rent-free’ home.

She was also given ‘considerable’ help to qualify as a speech and language therapist that enhanced her earning ability’, the judges said.

The case was heard at the Court of Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice in London (pictured)

However, Mr Southwell benefited from the support of someone who was ‘effectively a wife’ and who ‘shouldered the major housekeeping activities’, the court heard. The relationship came to a ‘messy’ end in 2012 and Miss Blackburn and her daughters found themselves homeless after the locks of the house were changed, it was said.

Appeal judges awarded Miss Blackburn a payout under the property law principle of promissory estoppel, which covers promises to someone that they can use a property.

They said she should be compensated for the £15,000 she had put into a rented home she gave up to move in with Mr Southwell, together with the £5,000 she had contributed to the Droitwich house, together with an allowance for inflation.

Miss Blackburn last night said she hoped the landmark court ruling would help other women in her position.

She said: ‘I paid some utility bills, I paid for food, I paid for items for the house.’

Of Mr Southwell’s decision to put the house in his name, she added: ‘I trusted him and believed everything he said, thinking I would be secure.