The ex-girlfriend of an 88-year-old millionaire has demanded a half share in his mansion – after he allegedly vowed to ‘look after her forever’.
Coral Read is locked in a court battle with wealthy demolition boss Dennis Read over the £6million property in Surrey.
She is also suing for £215,000 personal injury damages – insisting she was subjected to years of ‘abuse’ and ‘coercive control’, allegations Mr Read denies.
Mr Read is suing her in return, demanding the return of an £876,000 loan he says he made to her so their son could pay off mortgages on his property.
The couple began a relationship in the mid 1970s when Mr Read was 37 and she was 23, with Ms Read shortly after moving into his home near Cobham, Surrey.
Although they never married, Ms Read changed her surname and said Mr Read had bought her rings and promised they would be married ‘one day’.
She also claimed he had ‘repeatedly promised’ her he would ‘look after her forever’ and that she ‘need not worry’ and ‘the house is yours’.
But six years after their split, the former couple are now suing each other at London’s High Court, with Ms Read claiming a half share of the mansion.
Millionaire Dennis Read, 88, is locked in court fight with mother of his three children over his £6m mansion
Coral Read is also suing for £215,000 personal injury damages – insisting she was subjected to years of ‘abuse’ and ‘coercive control’, allegations Mr Read denies. She is pictured here outside London’s High Court
In response to counter claims, she has ‘vehemently denies signing’ a loan agreement adding it is ‘unenforceable’, and that the cash was in fact a gift for their son.
Setting out the background, Ms Read’s barrister Noah Gifford told High Court judge Ms Justice Obi: ‘After the collapse of their respective prior relationships, Dennis and Coral met in late 1974 or early 1975.
‘Dennis was 37 years old. Coral was 14 years younger than him, being 23 years old. After Dennis’ “constant suggestion”, Coral moved into Woodlands in December 1975.
‘From this point, Dennis repeatedly promised Coral that “I’ll look after you forever”, that she ‘never need worry’ and ‘the house is yours’.
‘He purchased her engagement and wedding rings and said they would be married “one day”.
‘They went on to live and present to the world at large as husband and wife, Coral even changing her name.’
Ms Read is now claiming she is equal beneficial owner of the £6million Woodlands House, despite it being in Dennis’s sole name, ‘by virtue of a common intention constructive trust and the doctrine of proprietory estoppel’.
The barrister said she had been promised this would be the case by Mr Read and, on the basis of those promises, had abandoned thoughts of returning to her career as a typologist, as well as managing the numerous renovations that took place at the property over the decades.
Woodlands House (pictured) was ‘repeatedly renovated’ and extended to a large five-bedroom four-bathroom house with an indoor and outdoor pool and many outbuildings. The property is now worth £6million
‘From the infancy of their relationship, Dennis promised Coral that the house was “ours”, he would put her on the title, she would inherit Woodlands from him and it was her house,’ he said.
‘Following these repeated promises, Coral committed herself to the household. She used what little money she had for the improvements and benefits of the house.
‘During these decades, Woodlands was repeatedly renovated and extended to a large five-bedroom four-bathroom house with an indoor and outdoor pool and many outbuildings.
‘Coral, along with being the homemaker, was responsible for and organised these, together with undertaking internal decorative works.
‘The objectively discernible intention was that the parties would share the property jointly as joint tenants. The same is consistent with their life as husband and wife.
‘Over the course of 45 years, Coral… devoted her life to Woodlands and sacrificed the life that she could have, including a career with financial independence.’
Mr Gifford also told the judge a £5,000 premium bond win by Ms Read in the 1970s had been used to buy a flat in her name, but that Mr Read ‘took all rental income over the course of decades’ and that those funds had contributed to the works on the family home.
‘Coral substantially contributed to the discharge of the mortgage and the extensive extension and renovations… by the rental monies rightfully hers and taken by the claimant who… applied these monies into his funds out of which the extensions and renovations were funded,’ he said.
‘By virtue of a common intention constructive trust and the doctrine of proprietory estoppel, Coral is a beneficial joint tenant of Woodlands.’
The barrister went on to accuse Mr Read of years of ‘abuse’ and ‘coercive control’ during the relationship and accused him of having ‘physically and verbally abuse[d]’ Ms Read for ‘decades’.
Ms Read is suing for £215,000 personal injury damages for the treatment she says she was subjected to during the marriage.
But denying the allegations, Mr Read’s barrister, Marc Brittain, told the judge: ‘The burden of proving each allegation lies on Coral on the balance of probabilities.
‘Coral’s first response to the [loan] claim [by Dennis], in August 2023 made no complaint of abuse by Dennis.
‘The prejudice to Dennis is acute. He is 88. Witnesses who might have spoken to the parties’ relationship are dead.’
Denying that Ms Read is due any share of Woodlands House, he said: ‘Coral made no contribution to the acquisition of Woodlands, which pre-dated the relationship.
‘The contributions she relies on are the running of the household, the organisation of building works, interior decoration, and the purchase of furnishings and fittings from the allowance Dennis gave her.
‘Such contributions, however valuable, are not of a kind from which a common intention to share the beneficial ownership can be inferred.
‘The statements on which Coral relies are, on her own account, of the kind “look at the house you’ve got”, “you’ve got this whole house” and “the house will be yours”.
‘Statements of that sort are consistent with Dennis’ admitted assurance that Coral had a home at Woodlands while their relationship continued, and with testamentary intention.
‘They are not evidence of a present common intention to share ownership.’
Refuting her proprietary estoppel claim, he told the judge she had suffered no ‘detriment’ by living with Mr Read and not getting a house of her own.
‘Coral’s working life was brought to an end in 1976… Over 45 years, she received a home, maintenance, private education for the children, private health cover and other benefits.
‘She has her own home… the suggestion that rent from [her flat] funded works at Woodlands is unsupported by any evidence,’ he said.
Addressing the loan claim, the barrister told the judge: ‘Dennis parted with £876,000. He got nothing in return; perhaps not unreasonably, he wants his money back.
‘Dennis transferred the money to Coral for a single, identified purpose: to redeem the two charges over The Lodge, Old Lane, Cobham, which Ashley then owned and which was listed for sale by auction, so that the land and buildings adjoining Dennis’ home could then be returned to him.
‘That purpose was never carried out; the purpose failed. Dennis wants his money back.
‘Dennis’ evidence is that Coral agreed to and signed the document. The court is invited to find that she did. The signature is, on Coral’s own evidence, very similar to hers.’
But denying Mr Read’s story about the loan claim, Mr Gifford, for Ms Read, told the judge: ‘The true agreement of Dennis and Coral was the gifting of monies to Ashley.’
After a half-day hearing, the case adjourned whilst Mr Read undergoes a medical examination to determine if he is fit to give evidence and be cross-examined.
