Furniture designer loses court battle over multimillionaire ex’s £18 million London mansion as court rules Alpine lunch promise was not legally binding

A legal dispute over an £18 million west London mansion has ended with a judge ruling against furniture designer Christina Haynes, who claimed her wealthy ex-partner, Mark Austin, had promised her half the property.

Haynes, 44, argued that Austin, 71, had made this commitment during a picturesque lunch in the Liechtenstein Alps.

However, the court dismissed her claim, calling the alleged promise nothing more than an “elaborate performance” to appease her during their relationship.

A Relationship Built on Wealth and Trust

Haynes and Austin began their relationship in 2000, creating what she described as a “blissfully happy” life together.

She gave up her career as a travel editor to focus on their home and children while Austin, a multimillionaire businessman, placed his vast wealth—estimated at £66 million by 2018—into offshore trusts.

After nearly two decades together, they separated in 2018, with Austin initially agreeing to pay Haynes £2.75 million to buy a new house.

However, when the payment never materialized, Haynes took legal action.

The Alleged Promise Over Lunch in the Alps

A key point in Haynes’ argument was a 2014 lunch meeting in the snow-covered mountains of Liechtenstein.

She claimed that the manager of Austin’s trust assured her that she would receive half the value of their home, reinforcing a promise allegedly made by Austin in a letter of wishes.

Haynes insisted this gave her financial security despite their unmarried status.

However, the court found that while these assurances may have been made, they were not legally binding.

The Court’s Verdict

Judge Wicks KC ruled that the 2014 conversation, as well as a 2016 letter from a trust director referencing Austin’s supposed intention, did not constitute a concrete legal commitment.

The judge described the meeting as an effort to reassure Haynes rather than a legally enforceable arrangement.

She noted that the trust administrators had carefully “tiptoed up to the line” of making a promise but had stopped short of a firm agreement.

What Happens Next?

Although Haynes’ claim to half the mansion was denied, the judge also ruled that she could not be immediately evicted.

The trust that owns the house, Hamersley Invest Anstalt, had sought to remove her, but the court decided she could stay until alternative arrangements were made.

This ruling leaves Haynes with some security for now, but without the financial settlement she originally sought.