News, views and top stories in your inbox. Don't miss our must-read newsletter Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A mum whose “dominating” older partner refused to marry her “in case someone better came along” has had the last laugh in a court fight over a million-pound investment property.

Kirsty Cahill, 33, was still at school when she met property developer, Stephen George Farrer, 53, and was “besotted by, wholly dependent on and trusting of him”.

She had three of his children, but he “publicly humiliated” her by getting down on bended knee in front of the whole family - before whispering in her ear that he wouldn’t marry her.

And now a judge has ruled that giving her the four-bedroom house in Colliers Wood, South London, was the price he paid for denying her the financial security of a wife.

He insisted he had only put the house in Park Road in her name to make it easier to get a mortgage - but Judge Nigel Gerald ruled it was all hers.

“Shameless” Mr Farrer, of Summer Hill, Harbledown, Canterbury, is now also facing legal costs that could reach £150,000.

Ms Cahill was in her teens when she met Mr Farrer but he refused to tie the knot because he had been “'stung” by a previous divorce .

“Also, perhaps unattractively, he said to her that he would not marry her in case somebody else better came along,” said the judge.

“That sort of comment... gives an indication of a tendency to dominate and humiliate,” he added.

Mr Farrer told the court he had considered getting wed after the birth of their third child but soon changed his mind.

The couple separated in 2012 when she moved out of the family home in Canterbury, the court heard.

It was a “rather old-fashioned traditional married relationship, albeit they were not married”, said the judge.

(Image: Richard Gittins / Champion News)

She looked after the children and home while he was the breadwinner and paid her an allowance.

“Financially naive” Ms Cahill had no A-levels and, throughout the relationship, he made it clear that “he had no intention of ever marrying her”.

The judge added: “On Christmas Day 2009, Mr Farrer went down on bended knee in front of the whole family and opened a little box containing his grandmother's engagement ring.

“He gave it to Ms Cahill - before later telling her not to get her hopes up because he would not be marrying her.

“That sort of public humiliation - raising false expectations only to be diminished at a time not two months after the birth of their third child - gives an insight into the nature of the relationship between these two people, separated by 20 years.”

Mr Farrer put almost £140,000 into buying the Colliers Wood house in 2007, for nearly £500,000, and the judge said there was “no doubt” it was an investment property.

Ms Cahill said it was put in her sole name to give her financial security as he was “not prepared to marry her”.

“If something happened to Stephen, for example death or becoming very ill, or if he decided to leave me, or I decided I would like to leave him, I would be left in a very financially precarious situation,” she told the judge.

“We had discussed marriage. I felt that would be a good solution to the problem of my financial security. However Stephen did not want to get married.

“Within the relationship, I did not feel very safe because of comments Stephen would make to me.

“On several occasions he said to me, ‘I am not sure I want to marry you in case someone better comes along’, which is not particularly reassuring.”

Her barrister, Elissa Da Costa-Waldman, said that after the bogus Christmas Day proposal, he had whispered to her, “don’t think I am going to marry you because I am not”.

Mr Farrer insisted that he had never agreed to give the property to Ms Cahill and that she “knew and understood he was the sole absolute owner”.

But Judge Gerald said Ms Cahill's account of the agreement was “preferable” to her ex-partner’s.

“While Ms Cahill has been an honest and straightforward witness... Mr Farrer has not been,” he told the court.

The businessman, he added, was “relatively shameless in the approach which he adopted towards Ms Cahill”.

“She was, I accept, concerned by her financial security and that is something which she raised with him,” said the judge.

He had “made it absolutely clear they were not getting married” and she had read in newspapers about the risks of unmarried partners being left “up the swanny”.

Mr Farrer was “the breadwinner”, “the much older and experienced person” and the “man of the world”, the judge added.

And the cash he put into buying the house was a trade-off “for no marital security” and the “price of not marrying her”.

“In my judgment it is clear that the property is absolutely owned by Ms Cahill and Mr Farrer has no beneficial or other interest in that property,” concluded Judge Gerald.

Mr Farrer was ordered to pay the legal costs of the case. He will have to come up with £40,000 within a month with more bills to follow.

The house, now valued at over £1 million, was sold for £810,000 last year, after the couple split.

And Judge Gerald’s ruling means Ms Cahill will receive the entire net proceeds from the sale, around £296,000.