The
ex-English wife of a Nigerian oil tycoon, Michael Prest, yesterday won a
lengthy court battle in Britain for properties he owned worth millions of
pounds, in a Supreme Court ruling with significant implications for divorcing
couples.
Lawyers
for Prest had claimed the properties were not his to hand over because they
were legally owned by companies in his Petrodel group. But seven judges at the
Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, ruled unanimously in favour of
his English wife Yasmin, who he married in 1993 and divorced in 2011.
They
found the disputed properties were held on trust for Michael Prest and he was
“beneficially entitled” to them, and as such they were eligible to be
transferred to his ex-wife. Mr Prest was not in court to hear the judgement
being delivered over the £17.5m divorce settlement.
The
United Kingdom’s Supreme Court judgement marks the latest round of a lengthy
legal cash dispute between the couple over Prest’s fortune. In October, the
Court of Appeal ruled that a High Court judge had earlier wrongly ordered Mr
Prest to transfer properties, worth millions of pounds and held in the names of
companies he controlled, to Mrs Prest.
She
then asked the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK to assess the case,
where seven judges yesterday unanimously allowed Mrs Prest’s appeal.
Prest,
founder of Nigerian energy company Petrodel Resources, claimed to be worth
about £48m.But Mrs Prest said he was worth much more than than that: “tens if
not hundreds of millions” of pounds.
Mrs
Prest said after the decision: “I’m delighted and relieved that the Supreme
Court has ruled as it did. “I’m grateful to the judges for the care and thought
they gave the case. It is more a case of satisfaction and relief than
celebration. None of this would have been necessary if Michael had been
sensible and played fair.”
Judges
heard the couple in their early 50s married in 1993, spent most of their time
in London, had properties in Nigeria and the Caribbean and lived to a “very
high standard”.
Lawyers
said the new ruling could have significant implications for divorcing couples.
The
challenge concerned the position of a number of companies belonging to the
Petrodel Group which are “wholly owned and controlled” by Mr Prest. One of the
companies is the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and
another is the legal owner of two more.
The
question the Supreme Court had to tackle was whether the court had power to
order the transfer of the seven properties to Mrs Prest, given that they
legally belonged to his companies, not him. Allowing Mrs Prest’s appeal, the
court declared that the seven disputed properties vested in the companies were
ones that Mr Prest was “entitled, either in possession or in reversion”.
One
of the judges, Lord Jonathan Sumpton, said it was not possible to give “general
guidance” following the ruling, saying the issue of whether company assets
were beneficially owned by their controller was a “fact-specific issue”.
But
family law experts said the ruling was highly significant. “It means that
business people cannot deliberately ‘hide’ their assets in businesses and
corporate structures to protect them in future in the event of a divorce,” said
Alison Hawes, a specialist family lawyer at Irwin Mitchell.
Marilyn
Stowe, senior partner of Stowe family law, said the ruling was a “victory for
common sense” and the judges had found an “ingenious way” around existing
company and family law.
Michael
Hutchinson, a partner at law firm Mayer Brown, said experts would be poring
over the “extraordinary” judgement for some time to try to understand its
limits. “The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark decision in which, for
the first time since at least the end of the 19th century, it has accepted a
general exception to the rule against ‘piercing the corporate veil’,” he said.
Tags
Society
This judgement simply meant less marriage institution in the uk. As men will be so wary of committment to marriage and its like.
ReplyDeleteU see. No one care who divorce de other. Which means any one can file a divorse against de other jst 2 hv instant whealth. & de court will rule in his or her favour.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how ds can help marriages.God save marriages.
ReplyDeleteIts quiet unfortunate for micheal prest but it just a lesson to be learnt by all and sundry.
ReplyDeleteI believe U wil anoda onyinbo woman after U re done wt this? I know one Catherine Hughes in London, I can help U wt her number for free.
ReplyDelete