Case No. EWFC-110
Family Court

Case No. EWFC-110

Fecha: 27-Sep-2022

W’s Evidence

91.I have covered much of her case earlier in this judgment. She was asked why she did not correct Mr D when he mentioned, as I accept he did, the possibility of the new property being held for her children. The correspondence surrounding the setting up of the meeting on 4 October make it clear that W was only available for a meeting in England for just a couple of days, and I accept her evidence that she was solely focussed on the issue of whether the purchase was to be of shares or asset.92.W’s schedule was punishing. She was working full-time. She delegated the purchase of the flats to H. I accept that she relied upon him to give the necessary instructions and did not seek to check what he was saying. 93.I have to ask myself whether it is really likely that W would have signed documents without fully understanding them. She is after all an able and experienced businesswoman. She plainly looked at some documents at least to the extent of signing on every page. 94.W was given little chance to study in any detail the conveyancing documents which along with the retainer letter and SDLT declaration make it clear on their face that she was to be the sole beneficial owner. The documents were sent via SB to H who presented them to W to sign without her ever being given an explanation of their contents. Nevertheless, she had the opportunity to ask questions if she needed to. This is a factor that weighs against her and I put into the scales.95.I have also borne in mind as requested the contents of W’s first statement made on 14 October 2020. I do not place on it the significance that Mr Waterman does. She states clearly at paragraph 24 that “I am effectively just holding (the new flat) on behalf of my brother” and at paragraph 26 “I do not consider this property truly belongs to me.”96.Whilst her case is not there set out as specifically as it might have been that she does not have a beneficial interest in the property, I do not consider that this is an inconsistent account with her case at trial. I have also to bear in mind the haste in which she was required to produce that statement.