Latest news with #CentralLondonCountyCourt
Daily Mirror
6 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mirror
Alt therapist wins fight to stop sister and support dogs taking mum's £420k home
Sharon Duggan and her two sisters were left their mum's home after her death in 2018, but she wanted to not sell and stay in the 420k house with her emotional support dogs A woman who sued her sisters in a bid to keep their dead mum's £420,000 home where she wanted to stay with her emotional support dogs, has lost her legal battle. Sharon Duggan who said she is "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" wanted to keep the home in Southgate, Crawley after the death of her 78-year-old mum Agnes who died in 2018. The mum had left her house to her three daughters - former NHS worker Sharon, 49, alternative therapist Brenda, 55 and oldest sister Ann, 60. Sharon - who told a judge she "is dyslexic and suffers from a variety of health issues, including chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder and also has long Covid" - claimed she needed the house for herself and her therapeutic rescue dogs, saying she is too sensitive for life in a flat. She sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money, claiming her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean she should get at least a life interest in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and has now won, after Judge Alan Johns threw out Sharon's claim at Central London County Court. The judge accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues,' but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. The court heard that most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out. She insisted that her needs outweighed her sisters' right to get the inheritance they are due, also arguing that it would be hard to find alternative accommodation for both her and her two therapeutic dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'. Sharon claimed she 'sacrificed' her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014, also arguing that her mum was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. As well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, she claimed to have spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that 'psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again'. 'She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep. She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively." In the witness box she insisted that downsizing to a flat would be too much for her, telling the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive. A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest, or alternatively an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, defended the claim, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a flat. Ruling against Sharon, Judge Johns said: 'It's my judgment that there has been no failure to make reasonable financial provision for her. 'I am not satisfied there was any promise that the property would be Sharon's - and certainly not a promise that Sharon was confident would be carried out.' He said Sharon had moved into her mum's house while in an 'excellent' financial position, although her finances are now badly depleted. She also lived with Agnes rent free and, although she had spent time caring for her mum while in declining health, the court's role wasn't simply to 'reward meritorious conduct'. 'Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate," he said. 'I don't rule out flats as suitable accommodation,' he added, also noting that Sharon should be able to work once the court case is behind her. 'As to her ability to work I don't accept that she is unable to work at all - or at least she will be after this litigation is dealt with,' he told the court, adding that Sharon herself had accepted in court that she hopes eventually to work again. He also rejected her claim that Brenda was estranged from their mum towards the end of her life. 'Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn't permitted by Sharon," he said. "That evidence included that her telephone calls were blocked and I accept all that evidence.' 'This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of." The decision means the three sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate, although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial.
Scottish Sun
6 days ago
- Health
- Scottish Sun
‘Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs
Alternative therapist claimed house for herself following mum's death WILL ROW 'Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A WOMAN has lost a court fight with her sisters to keep their mum's £420,000 home for her "emotional support" dogs. Sharon Duggan claimed the home in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 Sharon Duggan lost a battle for her mum's house Credit: Champion News Service 4 She claimed she needed the home for her therapy dogs Credit: Champion News Service The "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" alternative therapist said she needed the house for her therapeutic rescue dogs. Sharon took her sisters to court after they tried to claim their share in the home, which was left to all three daughters. Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after a judge threw out Sharon's claim. Sharon had used the 1975 Inheritance Act to argue she deserved "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money. She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, which include dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, Adjustment Disorder and long Covid, meant she should get at least a life interest in the property. But while the judge accepted that Sharon has "particular issues," he concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. Central London County Court heard most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out - citing her acute physical and emotional needs and the plight of her two rescue dogs. She insisted her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and argued she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014. Sharon also claimed Agnes was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. She told the court she spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that "psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again". Her barrister said: "She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep. "She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively." Sharon said she wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest. She also alternatively suggest an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum, which would be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda insisted that Sharon and her pets would be fine in a flat. Judge Alan Johns said he was "satisfied" there was no promise that the house would go to Sharon alone. He added: "Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate." The ruling means the sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate - although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial. 4 Brenda insisted her sister would be fine in a flat Credit: Champion News Service
The Irish Sun
6 days ago
- General
- The Irish Sun
‘Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs
A WOMAN has lost a court fight with her sisters to keep their mum's £420,000 home for her "emotional support" dogs. Sharon Duggan claimed the home in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018. Advertisement 4 Sharon Duggan lost a battle for her mum's house Credit: Champion News Service 4 She claimed she needed the home for her therapy dogs Credit: Champion News Service The "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" alternative therapist said she needed the house for her therapeutic rescue dogs . Sharon took her sisters to court after they tried to claim their share in the home, which was left to all three daughters. Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after a judge threw out Sharon's claim. Sharon had used the 1975 Inheritance Act to argue she deserved "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money . Advertisement Read more news She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, which include dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia , PTSD , Adjustment Disorder and long Covid, meant she should get at least a life interest in the property. But while the judge accepted that Sharon has "particular issues," he concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. Central London County Court heard most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out - citing her acute physical and emotional needs and the plight of her two rescue dogs. Advertisement Most read in The Sun She insisted her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and argued she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014. Sharon also claimed Agnes was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. She told the court she spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that "psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again". Advertisement Her barrister said: "She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep . "She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively." Sharon said she wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest. Advertisement She also alternatively suggest an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum, which would be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda insisted that Sharon and her pets would be fine in a flat. Judge Alan Johns said he was "satisfied" there was no promise that the house would go to Sharon alone. He added: "Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate." Advertisement The ruling means the sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate - although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial. 4 Brenda insisted her sister would be fine in a flat Credit: Champion News Service 4 Sister Ann supported Brenda in her fight Credit: Champion News Service
Telegraph
27-03-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Accountant sues after luxury £1.5m ‘Versace Tower' flat bathroom has no bath
An accountant is suing a developer after a bathroom in her luxury £1.5 million flat didn't have a bath. Mi Suk Park, 54, paid a £381,000 deposit on a two-bed apartment and a parking space in the 50-storey Aykon London One tower in Nine Elms 10 years ago. Dubbed the ' Versace Tower' after a high-profile collaboration between developers and the fashion house to design the interiors, the off-plan purchase was made after Ms Park viewed a brochure and floorplan and made the 'lifetime decision' to buy. Seven years later, when the flat was finally ready two years behind schedule, she refused to move in and sued for more than £700,000 after complaining it was 'materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description' that she had seen before paying the deposit. She told Central London County Court her complaints include one bedroom being smaller than she expected, one of the two bathrooms not having a bathtub, an intrusive utility cupboard which 'impinges' on what she expected to be an 'open-plan living space' and a two-year delay in the apartment being ready. She is now demanding more than £700,000, comprising the deposit money she paid and cash to cover five years' rent and other losses she says she suffered over the flat that was intended to be her and her husband's 'main home until retirement '. Counterclaim against Ms Park But developer Nine Elms Property Ltd – a Jersey-based entity owned by a parent company in Dubai – is fighting the claim and countersuing the accountant for not completing the purchase, insisting her deposit has been forfeited. The company's lawyers are arguing the brochure that Ms Park saw before putting her money down was for illustrative purposes only and made clear that what was being shown was simply an example of a 'typical layout'. Nazar Mohammad, for Ms Park, who runs an accountancy business in Surrey, told Judge Alan Johns that his client agreed the deal in November 2015 and paid her deposit towards a purchase price of £1,524,400. 'The apartment was an 'off plan' purchase on the 29 floors facing the west and, when built, it would have two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with a bathtub in each critically,' he said. 'It was to be an open-plan layout. The defendant provided a plan appended to the sales and purchase agreement, and she signed the same plan.' The flat was meant to be ready to move into in 2020 and Ms Park sold her home in 2019 in preparation, he continued. But when it was finally ready in 2022 and she viewed it, she was deeply unhappy. 'On delivery of the apartment, the claimant refused to complete the purchase as the apartment was materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description,' he told the judge. 'The defendant's expert and the defendant accept that the built apartment is not the same as the plan attached to the contract dated November 6, 2015.' 'Irredeemable breaches' He said 'irredeemable breaches' of the purchase contract include the fact that 'the utility cupboard impinges on the living space. It cannot be altered ... The second bedroom is smaller ... The second bathroom has no bathtub.' He said the brochure promised that 'Aykon Nine Elms will present a unique landmark ... feature floor-to-ceiling windows ... panoramic views of London' and that, 'put simply, life at Aykon Nine Elms will represent the ultimate in luxury, the ultimate in Versace '. 'Without qualification, the brochure describes it as the ultimate in luxury and combines it with panoramic views. The expectation raised and the price demanded is matched,' he said. Giving evidence, Ms Park told the judge what she had seen in the brochure and plans before paying the deposit were 'structural elements which should have been fixed.' But Rupert Cohen, cross-examining for the developers, said the brochure had shown example apartments and pointed out that 'at the top of each page ... it says 'typical layout'.' 'You may call me careless, but I didn't see 'typical' as an important word,' she replied. Ms Park is claiming her £381,000 deposit money, £131,000 rent she has paid since 2020, £150,000 over the sale of her house, which she says could have realised more if she had not hurried the sale through to meet the 2020 completion date, plus about £45,000 of additional losses.
The Independent
27-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Accountant who bought £1.5m London apartment sues for money back over ‘bathroom with no bath'
An accountant who says she was promised "the ultimate in luxury" when she bought a £1.5m Versace-designed London flat is suing to get her money back - after discovering her bathroom had no bath. Mi Suk Park paid a £381,000 deposit on a two-bed apartment and a parking space in the 50-storey Aykon London One tower in Nine Elms, dubbed the "Versace Tower" after a high-profile collaboration between developers and the fashion house to design the interiors. The off-plan purchase was made after Ms Park, 54, had viewed a brochure and floorplan and made the "lifetime decision" to splash out on the deluxe pad, which - she told Central London County Court - was intended to be her and her husband's "main home until retirement". But instead she ended up refusing to move in and suing for more than £700,000 after complaining that the built apartment was "materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description" that she had seen before paying the deposit. Her gripes include one bedroom being smaller than she expected, one of the two bathrooms not having a bathtub, an intrusive utility cupboard which "impinges" on what she expected to be an "open plan living space" and a two-year delay in the apartment being ready. She is now demanding over £700,000, comprising the deposit money she paid and cash to cover five years' rent and other losses she says she suffered. But developer Nine Elms Property Ltd - a Jersey-based entity owned by a parent company in Dubai - is fighting the claim and countersuing the accountant for not completing the purchase, insisting her deposit has been forfeited. The company's lawyers are arguing that the brochure that Ms Park saw before putting her money down was for illustrative purposes only and made clear that what was being shown was simply an example of a "typical layout". Nazar Mohammad, for Ms Park, who runs an accountancy business in Surrey, told Judge Alan Johns that Ms Park had agreed the deal in November 2015 and paid her deposit towards a purchase price of £1,524,400. "The apartment was an 'off plan' purchase on the 29th floor facing the west and, when built, it would have two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with a bathtub in each critically," he said. "It was to be an open-plan layout. The defendant provided a plan appended to the sales and purchase agreement, and she signed the same plan. "The flat was meant to be ready to move into in 2020 and Ms Park sold her home in 2019 in preparation, he when it was finally ready in 2022 and she saw it, she was deeply unhappy. "On delivery of the apartment, the claimant refused to complete the purchase as the apartment was materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description," he told the judge. "The defendant's expert and the defendant accept that the built apartment is not the same as the plan attached to the contract dated November 6, 2015." He said "irredeemable breaches" of the purchase contract include the fact that "the utility cupboard impinges on the living space. It cannot be second bedroom is second bathroom has no bathtub." He said the brochure promised that "AYKON Nine Elms will present a unique landmark…feature floor-to-ceiling windows …Panoramic views of London" and that, "Put simply, life at AYKON Nine Elms will represent the ultimate in luxury, the ultimate in Versace'. "Without qualification, the brochure describes it as the ultimate in luxury and combines it with panoramic views. The expectation raised and the price demanded is matched," he said. Accusing the developer of "misrepresention" and having "induced" the sale to Ms Park with the brochure and floor plan, he continued: "The court must not lose sight of the fact that this was a high specification, high-end apartment, and small/compact, for which the claimant agreed to pay a large sum of money. "The issue for the court is whether the defendant acted within the terms of the contract when the variations to the structure and layout of the expected apartment were made, and whether these alterations were material. "The claimant does not accept that the defendant is entitled to enforce the contract. The breaches of contract by the defendant are such that it has not delivered the bespoke apartment which she had an expectation to deliver." In the witness box, Ms Park told the judge that it had been a "lifetime decision" to splash out on the £1.5m designer apartment and it was to be her and her husband's "main house until retirement". She insisted what she had seen in the brochure and plans before putting her money down were "structural elements which should have been fixed". But Rupert Cohen, cross-examining for the developers, said the brochure had shown example apartments and pointed out that "at the top of each says 'typical layout'." "You may call me careless, but I didn't see 'typical" as an important word," she replied. Mr Cohen told the judge: "Ms Park refused to complete and, instead, purported to rescind the contract by letter dated 14 October 2022. "Subsequently, the defendant served notice to complete on 22 November 2022 and, following the claimant's failure to complete, a notice of termination on 9 January 2023. Ms Park issued these proceedings on 21 April 2023. "The court is invited to grant the declarations sought in the counterclaim, namely that the contract has been terminated and forfeited to the defendant." Ms Park is claiming her £381,000 deposit money, £131,000 rent she has paid since 2020, £150,000 over the sale of her house, which she says could have realised more if she had not hurried the sale through to meet the 2020 completion date, plus around £45,000 of additional losses. The case continues.
