An unfaithful boyfriend whose ex-fiancée claimed that he made an ardent Valentine's Day promise to give her his £230,000 home if they split up or he ever cheated on her again will not have to hand her the keys to the property after the Court of Appeal ruled that he had never given her any binding assurance.
Yvonne Slater had argued that Stephen Condappa, her boyfriend for 11 years, ‘made the biggest gesture he could think of’ to salvage their relationship on February 14 1999 so that she would give him a ‘second chance’. However, the court ruled that Mr Condappa had never promised her his home in Dongala Road, Plaistow, east London, and that contributions she had made to their joint living expenses also did not entitle her to a stake in the property.
Ms Slater's credibility was damaged after it emerged that she had engaged in a catalogue of deceit, including pretending to live in a council house – when she was co-habiting with Mr Condappa – so that she could carry on claiming benefits.
She had also forged letters to bolster her claim for damages after a road accident – she was awarded over £30,000 – and had been condemned by a judge after she admitted her ‘various deceits and perjuries without a flicker of regret’.
Mr Condappa, also did not emerge well from the case: He had carried on an affair with another woman behind Ms Slater's back for at least five years before they split up in 2005 and had also been labelled dishonest by a judge. Two previous girlfriends had lived with him in Dongala Road and one of them had also sued him for a share in the property. Ironically, Ms Slater helped him to defend the other woman's claim after they started their relationship in 1994.
He did not keep accounts for his computer business and its largely cash income was never declared to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. He also admitted that, in 1999, a property belonging to his mother was transferred to him so that she could obtain legal aid for a claim against her employers.
Mr Condappa insisted that Ms Slater had only ever been a ‘bare lodger’ in his home. However, she was adamant that he promised her the property if they parted or if he was ever unfaithful again and that she deserved at least a 50% share for the help she gave him in running his business and for the financial contributions she made.
Ruling on the dispute in November 2010, a county court judge had made findings of dishonesty against both Ms Slater and Mr Condappa but, in the end, preferred his evidence. The judge said that, when admitting her various deceits, Ms Slater ‘looked me straight in the eye without a flicker of regret, remorse or contrition about what she had done’. She had ‘lied and deceived and played the system in order to acquire and retain property and money to which she was not entitled’.
Dismissing Ms Slater’s appeal, the court ruled that, despite Mr Condappa's own conduct, the county court judge had been entitled to prefer his evidence to that of Ms Slater and to rule that he had never given her any ‘express assurance’. He had earned enough to pay the mortgage and other expenses relating to the property and Ms Slater’s financial contribution to the family’s living costs also did not entitle her to a share of the property.