A divorcée who was 'left with nothing' after losing a £1million-plus legal fight with her high-flying daughters has succeeded in a bid to drag them back to court a second time. Camilla Bains and her daughters have become 'a very sad, troubled and unfortunate family' after a catastrophic falling out following Camilla's divorce, the court had heard.
The woman was once so close to her kids that her daughter Sonia, a doctor for the FA and formerly for Premier League clubs, donated one of her kidneys to save her ailing mother's life. But in order to keep her means-tested benefits, Camilla had a £340,000 divorce settlement go to her daughter Sonia and lawyer sister Sharn Bains. She also set fire to papers relating to her true ownership of her £800,000 home, leaving it in Sonia's name.
When Camilla tried to get the house back from Sonia, 39, and the cash back from both Sonia and her sister Sharn, 30, the clan ended up in court. Suing at Central London County Court, she claimed the sisters had 'colluded to make up a story' to keep her wealth, while Sonia branded her mother 'motivated by greed' and 'jealous' of her daughters' success.
Judge Nigel Gerald in March last year ruled that Camilla had no claim to the return of the house and money, finding that she had got rid of her assets to keep her benefits, and then regretted it. But the case reached the High Court last week, where a senior judge granted her permission to resurrect the family fight over the house after hearing she had been left completely penniless by the row.
'It seems slightly odd and unfair that this woman has been left with nothing,' Camilla's barrister, Lexa Hilliard KC, told High Court judge, Mr Justice Fancourt. During the trial last year, Judge Gerald heard Mrs Bains was divorced from her husband in 2011, but the financial wrangling between them dragged on until it was finally settled in 2019. As part of the settlement, lump sum payments from her ex did not go directly to her, but instead to her daughters.
Although she had previously received the former matrimonial home, she had wanted to move as her ex was still living next door and so a new house was bought in Rosehill Gardens, Sutton. The judge found the five-bed property, which was put up for sale three years ago at an asking price of £800,000, was in her daughter Sonia's name, but that documents signed by the mother made it clear that Mrs Bains was the beneficial owner.
However, the family fell out and a bitter court row erupted after Mrs Bains laid claim to the house and the divorce monies. Rejecting her case, the judge found that an August 2019 note signed by Mrs Bains showed that she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the house to her daughter Sonia and also burned documents relating to her ownership of it. 'Mother was consciously divesting herself of her assets so as to retain her welfare benefits,' he said.
The case returned to court last week, with Camilla's barrister asking for permission to appeal the county court ruling in relation to the house. Explaining why she took on the mother's case, she said Mrs Bains had been left completely reliant on benefits, adding: 'She doesn't have any assets anymore. She has lost the property she had an interest in. The variation of the financial remedy proceedings order meant that Sharn and Sonia received the lump sum payments paid by her husband.'
Ms Hilliard pointed to the crucial August 2019 note at the centre of the house dispute, in which Mrs Bains wrote that she 'no longer holds a 99.9% beneficial interest' in the property. She said the wording was not a legal disposition of the property, but just a statement, with no evidence that she had in fact already relinquished her interest in writing, as the law requires. 'The August 2019 note was not a disposition of property subsisting at the time of the disposition,' she argued. 'What the note says is that "I have disposed of my interest in the property". In other words, what the document does is record ostensibly a disposition that's already taken place. But there is no evidence that the mother, prior to the 2019 note, had disposed of her interest in writing. It was never alleged and there wasn't a document in evidence that she had disposed in writing of her beneficial interest in the property at any time prior to signing this document.'
She also argued that the August 2019 note did not identify Sonia clearly enough as being the one to which Mrs Bains' interest in the house was going. Granting permission for a full appeal of the judge's decision about the house, Mr Justice Fancourt said the arguments put forward were capable of success. 'The test for me is not whether I would be likely to allow the appeal, but whether the arguments have a realistic, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success,' he said. 'I am satisfied that they do just get across the line and I will therefore give permission for those grounds to be argued.'
The case will return to court for a full hearing of Mrs Bains' appeal at a later date.
