Last October, Nigerian-born oil tycoon Michael Prest was ordered to pay his former wife cash and assets totalling £18m to his former wife. But after months of wrangling in the courts, with the couple running up legal bills of more than £3m, judges at the Court of Appeal handed down a written judgment on26 October saying the amount he had been asked to pay was wrong, cutting his divorce bill by £9m.
The ruling has been called 'disappointing' by lawyers for wives whose husbands might use companies to shelter their wealth.
Top London divorce lawyer Deborah Jeff, a partner at Seddons commented: "The case of Prest highlights again how family law is on the back-foot of commercial law in divorce settlements.
"In 2010, with the case of Tchenguiz and Imerman, a wife was prevented from using documents downloaded from her husband's computer when he sought to hide assets from her. We now have Mr Prest being allowed to use the corporate veil to place assets beyond his wife's control."
The couple married in 1993 and lived at their £4m Bayswater home, although they also had properties in Nigeria and the Caribbean. A £11.3m London property portfolio was built up, with almost all the flats and houses being owned by one of Mr Prest's companies. Lord Justice Patten said it had been wrong to claim that Mr Prest was the sole owner of the assets.
"Common sense and justice for spouses must be returned to our family courts," said Deborah Jeff. "The public perception of justice being done in divorce settlements is waning as a result of the 'cheats' charter' the courts are now seen to endorse. Whilst commercial law must be respected, the family courts must be able to look behind the deception of husbands and the structures they use to place assets beyond the reach of their wives. Fairness in family law must override commercial law, otherwise judges will continue to unwittingly authorise fraudulent behaviour of spouses getting divorced."
• Picture by Michael M, source Flikr