Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Clare Hewitt asks the court to allocate £1,200 of joint savings to her. The dispute concerns £2,400 transferred from the spouses’ joint savings account to Owen Hewitt’s account, followed by a £1,200 payment identified as a tenancy deposit. Owen opposes Clare’s request. The court decides only the allocation claim presented in this record. 2. The parties have both made final submissions. No further question is needed: the record identifies the central uncertainty, and no additional obtainable proof has been offered. The findings below are final for this hearing and are based on the supplied record and rules. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether Clare has shown that the deposit was to be paid from Owen’s share of the savings, such that she is entitled to the requested £1,200 allocation. Clare bears the burden because she seeks relief. Rule 1 requires the party seeking relief to point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague or unsupported accounts, while recognizing that testimony may still be considered. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 4. Clare argues that the savings were intended to be divided and that Owen’s receipt of the full £2,400, followed by the deposit payment, does not prove she agreed to bear half the deposit. She accepts that her first message broadly allowed Owen to use the savings. She says that permission was not agreement about allocation and that she told Owen beforehand the deposit was to come from his half. In her final submission, Clare acknowledges that no independent message or other detail confirms that condition. She continues to request £1,200. 5. Owen first asserted that he had proof of Clare’s instructions, but did not provide or describe that proof. He later argued that the account was joint and that the savings should be treated as belonging equally to both spouses. He opposes Clare’s request as unfair. His submissions are arguments, not proof of the spouses’ agreement. Evidence and findings 6. The presented transaction record, repeated as exhibits 3, 5, 7, and 9, shows £2,400 moving from the joint savings account into Owen’s account and a subsequent £1,200 payment referenced as a tenancy deposit. The record is relevant and described as strong for those transactions. It establishes the movement and payment of funds. It expressly does not explain the spouses’ agreement about allocation. Its repeated presentation does not add independent corroboration. 7. Clare’s account that she told Owen the deposit was to come from his half is relevant, but it is not independently confirmed in the record. Clare herself acknowledges the absence of a supporting message or other independent detail. Her account is therefore considered, but it does not establish the agreement on its own in the face of the limited transaction record. 8. Owen’s claim that Clare gave instructions is likewise unsupported: he neither produced the claimed proof nor explained what the instructions said about whose share would pay the deposit. His joint-account argument supports the proposition that the savings were held jointly, but does not establish whether the deposit was a shared expense or was to be charged to Owen’s share. The court does not treat either party’s unsupported assertion as an established agreement. Reasons 9. The evidence proves that joint savings were transferred to Owen’s account and that £1,200 was paid as a tenancy deposit. It does not prove the key additional fact needed for Clare’s requested remedy: that the spouses agreed the deposit would come from Owen’s half, or otherwise that Clare is entitled to have £1,200 allocated to her. 10. Clare’s distinction between permission to use the savings and agreement to share the deposit is sound as a matter of reasoning: permission alone does not necessarily settle allocation. But identifying that distinction does not prove the allocation she asks the court to order. The bank record cannot fill that gap. Clare’s account of what she said is considered, but the record contains no independent confirmation, and Clare candidly recognizes that limitation. 11. Owen’s argument that joint savings should be treated as 50/50 does not establish that Clare agreed to share this particular deposit. Nor does Owen’s unsupported assertion of instructions establish the opposite. The court therefore does not find that Owen proved a specific agreement in his favor. That does not resolve the claim for Clare: she bears the burden of supporting her requested relief, and the uncertainty on allocation means that burden has not been met. 12. Under Rules 1 and 2, the transaction record is reliable evidence of the payments but not of the agreement. Under Rule 6, an order allocating £1,200 to Clare would require a sufficient basis connecting that amount to an entitlement or proven loss. The record does not provide that basis. The claim must therefore be denied, without finding that Clare agreed to share the deposit or that Owen’s account of instructions is true. Final order 13. Clare’s request for an allocation of £1,200 is denied. No payment is ordered from Owen to Clare, and no amount is awarded. This order decides only the claim and evidence presented in this hearing; it does not determine any broader division of marital property or other financial issues not supported by the record.