A WORCESTERSHIRE businessman has slammed a court's decision forcing him pay his ex-girlfriend £28,500 following their break-up.

In what is considered a landmark legal case for unmarried couples in the UK, David Southwell, of Droitwich, was forced to pay Catherine Blackburn, 54, thousands of pounds following their split - despite paying for the entire house they shared.

Mr Southwell, aged 55, said his case should be a "a wake-up call for all cohabiting couples" and has warned it could "open the floodgates."

The insurance claims handler claims he also funded Ms Blackburn and her daughter's university educations, bought her a car and paid for all of the bills.

But after their 12 year relationship broke down in 2012 Ms Blackburn, a teaching assistant, launched legal proceedings against her ex-boyfriend.

She claimed she was entitled to half of the £320,000 detached house which they shared together inCharlotte Bronte Drive, Droitwich.

Following a bitter year-long court battle a judge has ordered Mr Southwell to pay his disgruntled ex-partner £28,500 as well as £50,000 legal costs.

Mr Southwell has slammed the ruling and the ruling and said it could open the floodgates for money-grabbing ex's to claim against their former partners.

He added: "I paid for virtually everything and she did not put a penny towards the house.

"I paid her mobile phone bill. I bought her a brand new car. She went to university because she wanted to study to be a speech and language therapist.

"She doubled her salary as a result of the degree. Whilst she was at university I was putting £500 a month into her account.

"The only bill I didn't pay was the house phone bill because I never used it with three women in the house.

"When she was at university her youngest daughter was also at university in Liverpool and I was supporting her as best I could.

"The relationship broke down in 2012 but the girls weren't thrown out of the house.

"One was at university and the older one went to stay with her boyfriend.

"I even rented her an apartment for £620-a-month for six months and furnished all that and got her a new car. I did all I could for them.

"It has been ridiculous. The case has now cost me £100,000 to give her £28,500."

Mr Southwell first met Ms Blackburn at a birthday party in February 2000 through mutual friends.

The pair initially conducted a long distance relationship between Hampshire and Manchester before deciding to move in together two years later.

Mr Southwell then paid for a detached house in Droitwich Spa using £140,000 equity from his previous home and a £100,000 mortgage.

Divorcee Ms Blackburn left her rented property in Manchester and moved into the three-bedroom home - which was only in Mr Southwell's name along - with her two daughters.

The couple lived together for 10 years before splitting up in 2012.

Ms Blackburn then took her ex-lover to Worcester County Court demanding half of the house.

Judge Daniel Pearce-Higgins QC rejected her claim but still ordered Mr Southwell to pay her £28,500 in September last year.

Ms Blackburn then took the case back to the same court in December and Mr Southwell was also ordered to pay her legal costs.

But he decided to appeal the whole case which was heard by three Appeal Court judges in London in June this year.

On Wednesday judges rejected the appeal on the basis he has reassured her she would always have a home for life after she gave up her job and rented home to move in with him.

They said that Mr Southwell - described in court as by nature "shrewd, cautious and guarded" - had offered her "the security a wife would have".

But Mr Southwell, who has never married and has no children, said he had made no such promises to his former partner.

He added: "I chose the house and I bought the house. She wasn't in a financial position to do so.

"There was no agenda because we were in love at that stage. She never invested one penny in this house.

"Had she had have the money I'm sure she would have done so.

"It was a non-issue because our financial positions were entirely different.

"But there's no animosity towards her, the frustration is at the way the legal system works.

"It's not fit for purpose.

"We were two people in love, we weren't thinking that the relationship would end."