Barristers clash in High Court over end to their 'tempestuous and topsy-turvy engagement'

A "tempestuous and topsy-turvy" relationship between two barristers descended into an unseemly row yesterday at the High Court in London.

While Kerry Cox accused her former fiancé of "alcohol-fuelled aggression and violence", he in turn claimed she had engaged in "blatant sexual behaviour" with a colleague and made "outrageous advances" to members of the Australian cricket team during a visit to the West Indies.

Lawrence Jones insisted he was only engaged to Ms Cox for a few weeks and she had to move out of his flat because of the "uncontrollable and unacceptable behaviour" of her alsatian dog, Bootsie.

The female barrister is claiming a half share of an Essex mill they were converting before the split in May 2001, as well as ownership of a London flat, though both properties are in Mr Jones's name.

The High Court heard that Ms Cox moved into Mr Jones's flat in Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, after they became engaged in early 1998. He said he took away the engagement ring in April that year because Ms Cox was seeing other men and he had discovered her "behaving blatantly" with a leading member of the Bar outside Stone Buildings.

He had first suggested buying her a diamond ring, she explained to Mr Justice Mann, while they were staying at the Mandarin Hotel in Hong Kong. She said they eventually settled on one, which was later valued at nearly £20,000, after a holiday in the Solomon Islands when they were "very much in love". Thomas Ashe QC, representing Mr Jones, asked whether she remembered agreeing with his client that if the engagement was broken off, she would return the ring. She replied: "Absolutely not. Lawrence would never have said that. It was not in his nature ... When he was very drunk he would insist on taking the ring away, saying it is all over. Next morning he would return it, saying he was terribly sorry. He was always very apologetic. The ring was always in my custody except for a few days."

Ms Cox insisted her former fiancé had only demanded the return of the diamond after she issued proceedings against him, but it had since disappeared. "I have offered to give it back but I physically can't," she said.

Mr Jones, giving evidence in the witness box, was asked by Michael Roberts, representing Ms Cox, why none of their colleagues, friends and family were aware that the engagement had been broken off. He explained that, having undergone treatment at The Priory Hospital, he acknowledged he was a man who let things go rather than address them. When Ms Cox introduced him as her fiancé, he would not contradict her because he kept his true feelings suppressed.

It was drink that allowed his inhibitions to come out, he said,

While he conceded the relationship, which continued after the engagement ended, was "tempestuous and topsy-turvy", he denied he was an aggressive drunk. Mr Jones also agreed under cross-examination that he had not paid income tax on his fees as a barrister or made VAT returns during the whole period he was in chambers in London from 1988 to 1998.

"Is that normal?" asked Mr Roberts. He replied: "It is not normal. Absolutely not. I was not evading paying tax, I just never go round to making returns." Mr Roberts said that was tax evasion. Mr Jones replied: "The revenue took the view it was avoidance and there was no evasion."

In her witness statement to the court, Ms Cox, from Islington, north London, explained that the couple had agreed that she would have a 50 per cent interest in Hulls Mill, Great Maplestead, Essex, a property they had bought to convert into their country home.

Furthermore, they had decided she would have sole ownership of another flat in the block where she now lives.

Her former fiancé, she said, regarded her claims "as those of an opportunist gold-digger of dubious moral standards".

"All in all, it is a pretty unpleasant dispute," she added, insisting she had brought proceedings with "great regret and reluctance".

"To be frank, I am also embarrassed that, given I am a barrister, I failed to protect my position by insisting that the trust deeds were drafted immediately and or insisting that my name was on the title deeds

"We were engaged and I was deeply in love with Lawrence. Despite our personal difficulties I truly believed him to be a man of utter integrity. Put simply, I trusted him."

The case continues today.