Unconvincing Hetty Baynes Loses Appeal

Ken Russell's ex-wife lost her claim for a bigger share of her mother's lesbian partner's estate before Mr Justice Lewison who found her an "unconvincing" witness and part of the stance she took "distasteful".

It is pretty clear from the case that that Hetty Baynes was a serial sponger so far as Mary Spencer Watson was concerned and some of her tactics not necessarily denoting the highest integrity. For instance:

"On 13th December 2005 Hetty went to see Mary at Dunshay Manor, at the suggestion of a friend, in order to encourage Mary to take responsibility for Hetty as a parent would. Having heard the evidence of Hetty and her friend, Lewison J had no doubt that Hetty tried to persuade Mary to change her will and "did so in forceful terms".

"By now Hetty had realised that her application for a large lump sum from Ken Russell would not succeed. She confronted Mary about her relationship with Margot, and Mary admitted that their relationship had been an intimate one. All the witnesses agreed that Mary was a very private person, who had never previously acknowledged her relationship with Margot; and to do so at this juncture must have been very difficult for her. Hetty herself said that Mary confessed to guilt and shame about the relationship. In her oral evidence, however, Hetty said that it was not her purpose to use the meeting to get Mary to pay her bills. It was, as she put it, about the "bigger picture"; although the canvas of the bigger picture seemed to be filled by her and Rex, and in particular her financial problems. What she wanted was for Mary to make her and Rex secure, by clearing her debts, buying her somewhere to live and giving them a solid base. She said to Mary that without anything coming from Ken she would be bankrupt and homeless; and asked Mary whether she would be happy with that. Without Mary's help, she said, they would not survive. These statements must have put considerable pressure on Mary and in my judgment they were designed to do so."

I wonder if Sears Tooth took this one on no-win-no-fee basis? If they did, then it is surprising that they did not appreciate how their client was going to come across.

If not, Ms Baynes must really be on her uppers now. I doubt, however, if anyone who reads the case (see title link) is going to feel much sympathy for her.