IN a landmark decision for unmarried couples, a ‘shrewd’ businessman who insisted his ex-lover was due nothing after she moved out of his home has been ordered to cough up.

David Southwell, 55, pointed out that he had paid for the £240,000 home in Droitwich, which was in his name alone, and had covered the £100,000 mortgage.

He said he had never envisaged marrying teaching assistant, Catherine Blackburn, 54, and had never promised her anything.

However, three Appeal Court judges today ruled his attitude “unconscionable” and ordered him to pay his ex £28,500.

Lord Justice Tomlinson said Miss Blackburn, a divorcee, had given up her job and her own home to move in with him and he had ‘reassured’ her she would be secure.

The former couple were ‘in love’ when they met in 2000 and she ‘took a big risk’ when she gave up everything to live with Mr Southwell, a claims handler.

She had little money following her divorce and the purchase of the home in Charlotte Bronte Drive, Droitwich, was entirely funded by Mr Southwell.

He said he had ‘made no promises’ and had always intended the house should be in his name alone.

Ruling on the case last year, Judge Daniel Pearce-Higgins QC said that Mr Southwell was ‘by nature shrewd, cautious and guarded’.

“He did not envisage marriage becuase he was aware that, as a wife, Miss Blackburn might have a substantial claim against him in the event of a breakdown”.

The judge added: “He was prepared to provide a home to Miss Blackburn and her two daughters, but it was to be on his terms.

“Both parties may have been ‘in love’, as they claim, believing that their relationship would never end, but I do not believe that either of them were blind to the realities”.

However, leaving her own home to move in with Mr Southwell was “a major step” for Miss Blackburn and the judge found that they must have discussed it.

They had made a joint decision to buy the house in 2002, although ‘he made sure she was kept away from any paperwork that might suggest she had an interest’.

When their relationship ended in acrimony in June 2012, she moved out with her daughters - and the locks were promptly changed.

Miss Blackburn and her girls, who were aged 11 and 12 when she met Mr Southwell, were left effectively homeless.

Judge Pearce-Higgins said it was ‘most unlikely’ that Mr Southwell - who he described as ‘quite detached’ - would have promised his lover an equal share in the house.

He added: “It would have been against his interest to do so...he was fully aware of that, which is why he made no such promise or agreement”.

With the benefit of hindsight, Miss Blackburn realised that she had been “too trusting and foolish” in failing to secure her rights.

Mr Southwell insisted that, following the end of their relationship, he owed her no legal obligations whatsoever.

But the judge ruled that he ‘did reassure her that she would always have a home and be secure in this one”.

He added: “He thought he was taking on a long-term commitment to provide her with a secure home and said so to her.

“He made such reassuring promises as were necessary to persuade her to move, and thereby give up her own independence and security.

“She was taking a big risk, moving from a secure rented house on which she had spent a lot of money, leaving her job and moving her children.”

Judge Pearce-Higgins concluded: “He led her to believe that she would have the sort of security that a wife would have, in terms of accommodation at the house and income.

“And she relied on that”.

Dismissing Mr Southwell’s appeal against that ruling, Lord Justice Tomlinson said he had believed that he was providing Miss Blackburn with a home for life.

He had told her that he was “taking on a long-term commitment to provide her with a secure home”, added the judge who was sitting with Lord Justice McFarlane and Lady Justice Macur.

Miss Blackburn had “abandoned her secure home”, in which she had invested what little money she had, to move in with Mr Southwell.

Ruling that she deserved a £28,000 stake in the property, the judge said that for Mr Southwell to go back on the assurances he gave her would be ‘unconscionable’.