A Didcot woman has lost a costly High Court battle against her own son.

Pauline Hughes, 70, of Tarrett Burn, Didcot, accused her son Felix of ripping her off over a deal involving a £600,000 house.

But yesterday, a top judge ruled in favour of Mr Hughes.

During an enormously expensive High Court case, Mr Hughes, of Walmley, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, battled his mother for control of the house in Alma Road, Windsor.

The house was bought by Mrs Hughes in 1964 and she sold it to her son in 1997 for £60,000 -- when the court heard it was worth £245,000. It is now said to be worth about £600,000.

Mr Hughes insisted his mother freely entered into the agreement for tax reasons and only wanted it back when she fell out with him over his choice of wife. Mr Hughes claimed during the hearing that she subjected his wife to racial abuse.

Mrs Hughes -- now on housing benefit -- argued her son unduly influenced her and did not allow her to have independent legal advice.

But Judge Sir Francis Ferris yesterday dismissed her claim.

David Parry, for Mrs Hughes, had argued that Mr Hughes had "exerted undue influence" on his mother, unfairly abusing the trust between them in order to broker the deal for the house.

He claimed Mr Hughes persuaded her to sell him the house by focusing on the financial benefits of the deal -- without saying that he would be able to oust her from the property at any time, or that she would not be entitled to any income from the house.

He also claimed that Mr Hughes had agreed to pay his mother a monthly income of £1,200, after the transfer of the house, but had since made only sporadic payments.

But the judge ruled that there had been no unfairness.

He said: "This is not a case in which the son has been entrusted with the management of his mother's affairs. It appears to me that Mrs Hughes kept her affairs very much to herself.

"I find there was no agreement that Felix should pay a monthly sum of £1,200, or any other monthly sum.

"I find no evidence that Felix was taking advantage of her.

"There was no evidence of any inability to read on the part of Mrs Hughes. Her evidence was to the effect that she read (the agreement) and, although she did not like it, felt that it was the best that could be obtained.

"It was true, therefore, that Mrs Hughes was in a weak position to obtain what she really wanted.

"But the fact that she did not obtain what she wanted does not mean that Felix took advantage of her. On the contrary, it appears to me that Felix was not ungenerous.

"The result of these proceedings is that the action fails and must be dismissed," the judge concluded.

Although Mrs Hughes was ordered to pay the heavy legal costs of the case, she was legally aided and the costs order is unlikely to be enforced against her.