THE FORMER partner of a woman who won £103,000 at the bingo in Dundee was “unjustly enriched” to the tune of £43,000, the sheriff court was told yesterday.

That’s the sum of which Alexander Bunce was the beneficiary after promising to sign over half of his £175,000 house to Karen Bryson and then failing to fulfil his pledge, an advocate claimed.

Ms Bryson (40) is suing her ex-boyfriend for a half share of his home claiming she agreed to split her bingo prize with him in exchange for Mr Bunce putting his house in joint names.

The two went on a spending spree after the win, which included exotic holidays and a £16,500 sports coupe, before their relationship soured.

Advocate David Logan, appearing for Ms Bryson, told Sheriff Hughes in his submission that there was no legal basis under which Mr Bunce could have received a share in the bingo winnings other than the understanding that his house was to be transferred into joint names.

Mr Logan said, “It’s the failure of the defender to transfer his house into joint names that gives rise to this action.”

The advocate said that Mr Bunce had benefited from a split of the bingo prize that gave him £43,373.

However, depending on how Sheriff Hughes decided the prize had been divided between the two parties and how some of it had been spent, there were two other sums of £27,880 and £40,601 that could form the relevant figure.

He added, “She (Mrs Bryson) has paid money to the defender in the expectation that he would transfer his house into joint names. He has chosen not to do that. In my opinion, it’s fair that she should get her money back.

“It’s not necessary for the pursuer in this case to establish there was a contract. What we have to establish is that there was a clear understanding between the parties—that money would go into joint names and the property would go into joint names.”

Mr Craig Thomson, advocate for Mr Bunce, argued in his closing speech that the split of the bingo money and the share in the house were unrelated.

He said there was sufficient evidence to hold that it was normal practice for Ms Bryson to share any winnings.

He asked, “If it’s accepted that the defender bought the tickets, gave them to the pursuer for her to play and the pursuer wins the money, is it fair that the defender shouldn’t benefit from this.”

Mr Thomson said a crucial piece of evidence was that several witnesses said they had heard Ms Bryson saying that she was going to split the bingo win with Mr Bunce.

The final witness in the case was Helen Chalmers, a cleaner at the Ferry Inn where Ms Bryson worked as a barmaid.

She said that, on the morning after the bingo win, Ms Bryson had couched her good fortune in terms of both she and Mr Bunce having won.

Sheriff Hughes said he would notify both parties of his decision in writing.