.svg)
A multi-millionaire's ex-partner has lost her legal battle for a share of their £18 million London home after a judge ruled that a supposed promise made during a mountain-top lunch was merely an "elaborate performance."
Christina Haynes, who was 20 when she met 46-year-old Mark Austin in 2000, described their relationship as “blissfully happy.” The couple had two children, and she gave up her career to live with him in their west London mansion, now valued at £18 million.
Mr. Austin, whose fortune was placed in offshore trusts worth around £66 million by 2018, allegedly assured Ms. Haynes that she would receive half the property if they separated. She based her claim on a 2014 meeting in Liechtenstein with Mr. Austin and the manager of one of his wealth trusts, but the court dismissed her case.
High Court Judge Joanne Wicks KC has ruled that the 2014 mountain-top meeting was a staged event designed to appease Christina Haynes, as Mark Austin refused to marry her. The judge concluded that the assurances given did not constitute a legally binding promise.
“Many may see this as cruel... but that is not enough to grant her legal rights,” she stated.
Ms. Haynes, now 45, separated from Mr. Austin, now 71, in 2018. Following Family Court proceedings, he agreed to pay her £2.75 million to purchase a new home for herself and their children. However, when the payment did not materialize, she returned to court to claim half the value of their £18 million family home.
She recounted that during a lunch in the Alps, Mr. Austin remained nearby while his trust manager reassured her that a previous promise—outlined in a letter of wishes—guaranteeing her half the property’s value would be honored.
Judge Wicks KC described the meeting in Liechtenstein as an "elaborate performance" aimed at giving Ms. Haynes a sense of security while their relationship was under strain due to her wish to marry.
The issue of their unmarried status had been a "bone of contention," with Ms. Haynes particularly worried about how her mother would perceive her raising children alone in London while Mr. Austin lived in Switzerland.
Further correspondence in 2016 showed that trust administrators, acting on Mr. Austin’s instructions, carefully reassured Ms. Haynes without making a firm legal commitment.
The court heard that Ms. Haynes, a former travel editor for the now-defunct luxury magazine Tramp, met business tycoon Mark George Austin in 2000 and quickly fell deeply in love.
In court, Christina Haynes testified that her relationship with Mark Austin was initially “blissfully happy” and that she became “highly dependent” on him after leaving her job to raise their children.
She claimed to have given Mr. Austin £60,000 from her inheritance to invest and contributed to house renovations. Meanwhile, she managed the household after Mr. Austin sold his company, Digital Vision Ltd, in 2006, transferring the proceeds into offshore trusts and relocating to Switzerland to reduce his tax burden.
Ms. Haynes recounted a 2014 trip to Liechtenstein, where she met with the manager of Mr. Austin’s trusts. She alleged that during this meeting, she was assured she would be financially secure despite his assets being held in trusts. According to her, the trust manager confirmed that a prior agreement regarding her share of the house would be honored, reassuring her over lunch in the Alps that she and her children were protected.
She also pointed to a 2016 letter from a later trust manager, which she said reaffirmed her entitlement to half the home’s value.
The couple separated at the start of 2017, and in December 2018, they reached a consent order under which Mr. Austin agreed to pay her £2.75 million to buy a new home. He also allowed her to remain in the family home until she secured another property.
When the payment was not made, a Family Court judge attached a penal order to enforce it in October 2019, along with over £200,000 in legal costs.
In 2020, the manager of Hamersley Invest Anstalt, the overseas trust that owns the west London mansion, issued Ms. Haynes an eviction notice as the property was set to be sold. However, she obtained an injunction preventing her removal and, in 2021, secured charging orders of approximately £3 million against the house for the money she was owed.
The case returned to court in November 2023, with Judge Joanne Wicks KC tasked with determining whether Ms. Haynes should vacate the property or whether it should be sold, allowing her to claim half its value along with the £3 million from Mr. Austin’s share.
Last week, Judge Wicks ruled against Ms. Haynes' claim to half the house's proceeds and her request to force its sale. However, she also denied Hamersley Invest Anstalt’s bid to evict her, ruling that she could remain until a new home was provided.
The judge found that the 2014 trip to Zurich and the subsequent meeting in the Liechtenstein Alps were an “elaborate performance” intended to reassure Ms. Haynes at a time when her unmarried status was causing tension in the relationship.
She concluded that the assurances given by trust manager Dr. Markus Wanger did not constitute a legally binding promise. “While they were undoubtedly meant to be relied upon by Ms. Haynes,” the judge said, “they fell short of the legal requirements for proprietary estoppel.”
She explained that Mr. Austin and Dr. Wanger carefully orchestrated the meeting to provide reassurance without making an enforceable commitment. Although Ms. Haynes' reliance on the statements was understandable, they did not grant her a legal right to the property.
Letters from a later trust director, Dr. Helmut Schwaerzler, referencing Mr. Austin’s wish for Ms. Haynes to have a share of the house, were also deemed non-binding due to the discretionary nature of the trust’s powers.
“Both Dr. Wanger and Dr. Schwaerzler, acting on Mr. Austin’s instructions, carefully avoided making a firm promise,” the judge stated. “Many may see this as cruel, but that alone does not create legal rights.”
As a result, the court ruled that Ms. Haynes was not entitled to a half-share of the house’s value or to force its sale to settle Mr. Austin’s debts. However, she retained the right to remain in the property until suitable alternative accommodation was secured for her.
