The interesting aspect of this case( apart from the fact the art teacher compared his relationship with his girlfiend of 25 years to that with his dog and wondered why the judge took exception to this) is that the house they owned had always been in his sole name and as cohabitees his girlfiend's legal rights were pretty limited because of this. However the judge looked at the way the couple contributed to their relationship and concluded that the financial fruits of their relationship had cleary been accrued by a joint effort. The home although in the art teachers sole name was essentially a " matrimonial asset" even though they were not married and funded by the success of the business they ran together.
So his girlfriend got a lump sum in essence to buy her out of the property she did not own. Judge was pretty unhappy with the art teachers evidence.
Top tip - don't in family proceedings suggest your relationship with your girlfriend of 25 years is less important than the one with your dog. The judge will not be impressed.
Lecturer Rupert Ashmore loses financial court battle with former pupil he dated for 25 years Art teacher who had relationship with teen student tells court he was not sure he loved her any more than his dog