A nurse has been ordered by a court to repay £40,000 to her former boyfriend, a firefighter who won £200,000 on a scratchcard, after a legal dispute over the money.
Heather Douglass stormed out of a virtual court hearing after being informed she would have to return the funds to Craig Titchener. Mr. Titchener, a Heathrow Airport firefighter, purchased a winning 'Winter Wonderlines' scratchcard in 2019. He told the court that he intended to use the prize money to help purchase a house for himself and his children.
He transferred approximately £40,000 to Ms. Douglass, his girlfriend at the time, with the understanding that she would use her financial expertise to invest it on his behalf. The court previously ruled that an additional £5,000 transferred to her was a gift.
Ms. Douglass had contested the claim, alleging that Mr. Titchener had given her the larger sum to improve their relationship during what she described as a volatile 11-month relationship. She contended that the money was given to 'get back into her good books.'
However, District Judge Charlotte Hart ruled last year that the £40,000 was intended for investment. The judge has now formally ordered its repayment.
The case, which has seen the former couple exchange sharp words in court, has concluded with the judge ruling in favor of Mr. Titchener. Ms. Douglass had asserted that Mr. Titchener gave her the money because he was desperate to be in a relationship with her and was controlling. She also stated that she has an addiction to over-spending and had used some of the money for a holiday and home improvements, with his alleged agreement.
District Judge Hart found little evidence of a controlling relationship, as claimed by Ms. Douglass. In a recent hearing, the judge struck out claims that some of the £40,000 had been spent with the firefighter's permission. The court had ordered Ms. Douglass to submit a witness statement along with her bank statements to detail how and when the money was spent, but she failed to produce these documents, which the judge deemed a significant breach of court orders.
Mr. Titchener argued that he should receive the full £40,000 back due to her failure to provide complete financial evidence. Ms. Douglass claimed she had changed her email address and that her bank had refused to provide statements, but this did not satisfy the judge.
Upon learning the case was not ending in her favor and that she would have to repay the £40,000, Ms. Douglass ended her participation in the virtual hearing, stating she disagreed with the proceedings before disconnecting.