Nancy Dell'Olio is a woman of cast iron self esteem. If there's anybody out there who didn't read her "Life In The Day" in the Sunday Times then (a) you missed a treat and (b) stand back in awe of someone who says of themselves "since I was a little child in Italy, people have looked at me, and not just because I'm beautiful; it's something else that comes from inside me. I know I'm fascinating."
Unfortunately for Nancy, her erstwhile boyfriend, former England football manager Sven-Göran Eriksson found her less than fascinating and the relationship broke up in 2006. Nancy, who recently burst onto our television screen in Strictly Come Dancing (achieving only a score of 12, poor soul), has recently let it be known that she is not at all happy about Eriksson wanting to sell the £1.8 million Mayfair flat she lives in.
It transpires that Eriksson bought the flat for both of them - an important point, this, if it can be proved - and Nancy has sought legal advice to ascertain, I imagine, her chances of hanging onto to the apartment in Eaton Place.
What's more, we're told she plans to sue her former partner for a financial settlement intended to recognise their decade-long relationship.
Nancy, when she isn't being fascinating, is a lawyer and a property lawyer to boot, although whether Italian property law is the same as English property law I have no idea. Nonetheless, she could have a case against Eriksson.
If she can demonstrate that the intention was for both she and Eriksson to share the property (I have to say it would have helped her case enormously if they had been engaged to be married because if engaged it is very difficult to move away from the 50:50 split) then that allows her to claim for a declaration or enquiry as to the beneficial interest, similar to the procedure for resolving disputes under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882. She need not necessarily have her name on the title deeds either; she may be able to claim an interest in the property if she'd made a direct financial contribution towards the mortgage and other expenses or if she had paid for substantial improvements or even acted to her own detriment, giving up her own property for example or compromising her previous lifestyle. Case law, however, is ambiguous on the subject.
As Nancy slips on her dancing shoes this week and prays she doesn't get entangled in her feather boa again, one thing she should bear in mind is that potentially, this will be no waltz through the courts. Litigation cost rules will apply, because this case will not be covered by Family Law (where each party bears their own costs). Costs are an important and integral part of litigation. Before pursuing any court proceedings Nancy should give serious consideration to the likely costs involved, as there is a very real risk that it could end with her being ordered to pay Eriksson's legal costs. And that could mean, as it so often does in litigation cases, that the costs incurred exceed the amount that is recovered.
Nancy told the Sunday Times this year that "I don't know anyone who does as much as I do. I'm a lawyer first of all. I do public affairs. Call it lobbying." If she truly is a lawyer first, she'll think very, very carefully. And not just about the quickstep.