In a dramatic court case that has captured public attention, a bitter family dispute has unfolded after a mother, Camilla Bains, lost her fight to reclaim a substantial divorce settlement from her daughters.

The saga, which started with a divorce in 2011 and escalated into a financial wrangle, reached its final chapter in 2025 when a judge ruled that Camilla’s daughters would retain the house and money she had previously transferred to them.

The Divorce Settlement and Controversial Transfer of Assets

Camilla, who had been receiving means-tested state benefits due to her ill health, divorced her husband in 2011.

However, their financial arrangements weren’t settled until 2019.

As part of the settlement, Camilla transferred £295,000 from the payout to her two daughters, Sonia and Sharn Bains, and gave Sonia ownership of her £800,000 home in Rosehill Gardens.

This move was reportedly done after Camilla was warned by her lawyers about potential benefit fraud.

At the time, Camilla moved out of their matrimonial home due to the proximity of her ex-husband’s residence.

However, tensions later surfaced, and a legal battle ensued, with Camilla attempting to claim back the property and the funds, arguing that the assets were only held “in trust” by her daughters.

The Court Battle and a Tragic Family Dispute

The situation grew more complicated when the family became embroiled in a bitter dispute.

Camilla’s daughter Sonia, a respected sports doctor, and her sister Sharn, a lawyer, both fought against their mother’s claim.

Sonia, who had previously donated a kidney to her mother in 2017 to save her life, expressed frustration with Camilla’s actions, accusing her of being driven by greed and jealousy over their success.

The case went to Central London County Court, where Judge Nigel Gerald ruled that Camilla had no legal grounds to claim back the money or the house.

He found that Camilla had intentionally divested herself of the assets to maintain her eligibility for state benefits, even going so far as to burn trust documents confirming her ownership of the house.

According to the judge, this deliberate act was done in an effort to protect her benefits and avoid benefit fraud.

Legal Findings and Final Ruling

In his ruling, Judge Gerald made it clear that the money and house were no longer Camilla’s.

Although Sonia’s name was on the house deed, documents signed by both mother and daughter had made it clear that Camilla had relinquished her ownership.

The judge also noted that the £295,000 given to her daughters was considered a gift and not a loan that could be reclaimed.

Importantly, Camilla had been aware of the risks of benefit fraud and knew that once the money was transferred, it would legally belong to her daughters.

She had not disclosed her interest in the funds to the benefits agency, which further reinforced the idea that the transfer of assets was deliberate.

A Heartbreaking Family Divide

The ruling highlighted a deeply tragic and troubled family dynamic.

While the legal aspects were clear, the emotional fallout between Camilla and her daughters was evident.

The court acknowledged the animosity between them, which was compounded by the bitterness of the legal dispute.

Yet, it wasn’t always this way—Sonia had made a tremendous sacrifice for her mother in 2017, donating a kidney to help save her life.

Despite this, the relationship deteriorated, culminating in the courtroom drama.

The judge concluded that the property and the funds were legally Sonia’s, and Sharn was also entitled to the £240,000 she had received.

The remaining £45,000, which was meant for the benefit of the Bains’ son, was to be held for him.

A Cautionary Tale of Family, Greed, and Trust

This case serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of financial decisions within families, particularly when they intersect with legal and welfare issues.

What began as a divorce settlement has spiraled into a heartbreaking legal battle, leaving behind damaged relationships and unresolved conflicts.

The court’s decision now closes the chapter on this contentious case, but the scars of this bitter family feud are likely to remain for some time.