Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Stockbroker wins £22,000 damages for paternity deceit

· Court claim for emotional hurt and school expense
· High court judge rejects mother's evidence
Tue 3 Apr 2007 19.05 EDT

A wealthy stockbroker whose former girlfriend deceived him into believing he had fathered her son was awarded £22,400 damages against her in the high court yesterday. In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in Britain, the man, 63, known only as Mr A for legal reasons, claimed compensation for the emotional hurt of thinking he was the father when he was not. He also claimed for being significantly out of pocket after paying for the child's maintenance and his fees at Charterhouse school.

The judge, Sir John Blofeld, said he had been unable to accept the evidence of the woman, known only as Ms B, who is now 46 and a mother of two, and said she had made repeated "fraudulent representations" to Mr A over the child's paternity.

He said that he found her story of the one-night stand which resulted in the child unlikely and "wholly incapable of any corroboration". He said he did not believe her when she said she had come off the contraceptive pill because of her unsatisfactory sexual relationship with Mr A and that her decision to undertake a DNA test over the boy's paternity in 2002 - when her son was five - "sits uneasily" with her evidence that she had put it to the back of her mind.

The judge said: "Having accepted A's evidence and rejected B's I have no difficulty in finding that representations were made on a large number of occasions and were untrue and when they were made they were fraudulent. I am quite satisfied that, as a result of those fraudulent representations, he suffered damage." Ms B, who was a former secretary of Mr A, became pregnant in the autumn of 1996. In court she admitted lying to Mr A about a one-night stand but claimed she did not know who the father of her child was, because she was ashamed of the encounter. Judge Blofeld described Mr A as man of dignity and said his evidence was "truthful and reliable". Quoting from a previous court decision, he said: "Having not anticipated fatherhood, Mr A fell in love with his son as he believed. He loved him, he wanted him, he treasured him."

It was Mr A's case, accepted by the judge, that Ms B had told him "voluntarily" more than 100 times that he was the father, and that on six further occasions he had asked her if he was the father - and each time she had replied yes. Awarding him £7,500 for the distress he had suffered, the judge said Mr A had been "devastated" and had undergone a "substantial degree of distress" and "great unhappiness".

He said he was satisfied that Mr A's motivation in coming to court was not as a lever for contact with the child but because he did not want "to be taken for a ride". He also awarded Mr A another £14,943 for money for holidays and meals out he had spent on Ms B.

He did not award him money for school fees and other payments he had made. The total figure in damages was £22,443, but that was less than the £100,000 the father had been claiming.