Law graduate claims half of her lover’s £1.3m house

An unemployed graduate who never did a ‘proper day’s work’ as she lived off her businesswoman girlfriend’s money is now claiming a share of their £1.3million former home.

Law graduate Shree Ladwa, 43, never had a permanent job during sixteen-and-a-half years with her former girlfriend, Beverley Chapman, 45, a court heard.

Instead, it was Miss Chapman who worked to fund their lavish lifestyle, pay off their mortgage and put a diamond engagement ring on her finger during a trip to Monaco.

Now, following their split in 2016, the former couple are fighting it out in court over ownership of the house they once shared near Chingford.

Beverly Chapman, pictured, is locked in a legal battle over the £1.3m house

Shree Ladwa, left, didn’t do ‘a proper day’s work’ during her entire relationship with Beverley Chapman, right, a court was told 

Miss Ladwa says she cooked and cleaned for Miss Chapman, and is entitled to half the property like any other ‘housewife’ in a traditional ‘divorce’ battle.

Although the house was bought in her partner’s sole name, she claims they always intended to own it in equal shares and that is why Miss Chapman transferred it into their joint names in 2008.

But Miss Chapman claims she was treated as a ‘cash cow’ by her girlfriend and it was only her incessant nagging that led her to put the house in joint names, meaning Miss Ladwa is now entitled to nothing.

‘She started to put pressure on, saying we can transfer the house over,’ she told Judge Stephen Murch at Central London County Court.

Miss Ladwa argued that she acted as a housewife while the couple were living at the £1.3million property (pictured) in Waltham Abbey 

Miss Ladwa argued that she acted as a housewife while the couple were living at the £1.3million property (pictured) in Waltham Abbey 

‘I would probably best describe the way she behaved over the next few months as a bit like a child who keeps asking for something, like “can I have this toy?”, and asks repeatedly or makes repeated references to it, so that you relent.

‘You get to the point where you are really tired out by hearing the same thing, again and again and again.’

Miss Chapman’s barrister, Elizabeth Darlington, said Miss Ladwa had ‘pushed’ her partner until, eventually, she was so ‘worn down’ that she gave in.

During their relationship, which began in 1999 or 2000, Miss Ladwa, who received a £25,000-a-year allowance from her mum, never did ‘a proper day’s work’, instead choosing to live mostly off her girlfriend, the barrister claimed.

Miss Chapman, pictured outside court today, claims she was worn down by Miss Ladwa refusing to work

Miss Chapman, pictured outside court today, claims she was worn down by Miss Ladwa refusing to work

Her law degree had not led to a permanent job, nor her time training at leading cookery college, Le Cordon Bleu, and numerous attempts to start businesses had gone nowhere, she added.

‘The reason you didn’t work is because you didn’t want to, did you?’ Ms Darlington put to Miss Ladwa. ‘If you really wanted to get a job, you could have got a job in any number of things. The bottom line is you didn’t want to work.’

Denying the accusation, Miss Ladwa said she had concentrated on getting a training contract following her law degree, and had fired off numerous applications for jobs over the years, without success.

And she denied an accusation that she had constantly disparaged her partner and put her down in front of other people.

When the house in Bury Road was bought in 2007, it was to be their home, Miss Chapman promising to transfer it into their joint names once the mortgage was paid off, she said.

‘Bev told me it would be easier to secure the mortgage if it was just in her sole name,’ Miss Ladwa told the judge.

‘It was always going to be our home, our future home. I trusted her.’

She had ‘never pressured’ and ‘never hassled’ Miss Chapman into transferring the house and denied the accusation that she had been advising her all along.

Miss Ladwa’s barrister, Anthony Geadah, said that, although Miss Chapman had paid off the mortgage, some of the funding for the house came from the sale of their previous home, which had been jointly owned, and from their joint bank account.

All Miss Chapman had done when she then put the house into their joint names was to honour a ‘promise’ she made to a partner of many years.

The relationship had been one of ‘love and affection’ and they had continued to send each other intimate messages for months after they split in 2016.

Miss Chapman had ‘maintained’ Miss Ladwa as her ‘long-term partner and housewife’ for more than 16 years, he said.

Comparing the case with a ‘divorce’ battle in a Family Court, he put to her: ‘Isn’t it the truth that Shree was effectively housewife?

‘She kept care of the house, she made sure it was always immaculate. She took care of you, supported you when you were stressed. She cooked and cleaned and did all the household chores. She was effectively the housewife and you were out making the money.’

Miss Ladwa's lawyer said she maintained Hilltop (pictured) and ensured it was always immaculate 

Miss Ladwa’s lawyer said she maintained Hilltop (pictured) and ensured it was always immaculate 

Miss Chapman replied: ‘I don’t know the reason why she couldn’t get a job. I could walk out on the street tomorrow and get a job.’

For Miss Chapman, Ms Darlington claims that the transfer of the house into joint names should be overturned due to undue influence, Miss Ladwa having exerted ’emotional pressure’ to get the documents signed.

But Mr Geadah argued that Miss Chapman, director of a construction industry firm, is a ‘successful businesswoman’, who did not rely on her partner’s advice, and is simply trying to ‘re-write history’.

The couple had been involved in a loving relationship for many years and Miss Chapman had been ‘generous’ to her partner on other occasions, buying expensive gifts.

‘It is submitted that the transfer into joint names can clearly be reasonably accounted for and therefore does not in the circumstances call for an explanation,’ he said.

The judge reserved his ruling on the case until a later date.



Read more at DailyMail.co.uk