Culled from Dailymail:
Nigerian oil tycoon, Michael Prest, 51,
lost a legal fight with his estranged English wife today in a landmark
court case over a £17.5m divorce settlement. The Supreme Court ruled
that properties owned by Michael’s companies did count as his, and
therefore should be counted as his assets in the high-profile divorce
battle between him and ex-wife Yasmin, 50.
Lawyers say the
decision, which overturned an earlier Appeal Court ruling that Mr
Prest's companies could not be taken into account when calculating the
divorce payout, could have significant implications for divorcing
couples.
This morning's Supreme Court judgment,
which followed a hearing in London in March, was the latest round of a
lengthy legal battle between the couple, who married in 1993 and spent
most of their time in their £5m matrimonial home in London's Maida Vale.
Mrs
Prest, who has four children by her ex-husband, said after the decision
was announced: '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.'
In
October, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr Prest did not have to hand
property worth millions of pounds to Mrs Prest. Appeal judges concluded
that a High Court judge had earlier wrongly ordered Mr Prest, who is now
based in Monaco, to transfer properties held in the names of offshore
companies he controlled.
Their decision came after Mr Prest
claimed that the millions of pounds held in cash and property by
companies he owned did not count as his assets. Mrs Prest then asked the
Supreme Court - the highest court in the UK - to analyse the case.
Judges
heard that the couple, who married in 1993, spent most of their time in
London, had properties in Nigeria and the Caribbean and lived to a
'very high standard'. They were told that Mr Prest claimed to be worth
about £48m, but Mrs Prest said he was worth 'tens if not hundreds of
millions' of pounds.
Mr Prest, who now faces having to pay an
estimated £3m legal bill, was not in court to hear the judgement as
seven Supreme Court justices unanimously allowed Mrs Prest’s appeal
today.
Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger, and Lords
Sumption, Clarke, Mance, Wilson and Walker and Lady Hale said that the
companies were held in trust for the husband and became family property.
They
ruled that under English law in certain circumstances the courts can
'disregard' and 'pierce the corporate veil' in order to reach the
assets.
They concluded that seven properties held by Mr Prest’s
Petrodel Group were properties to which he was 'entitled' - even if he
did not own them personally - and therefore should be counted as assets
in the couple's divorce.
However justice Lord Sumption warned
that it was not possible to generalise about whether a company's owner
was always entitled to its assets.
He said: 'Whether assets
legally vested in a company are beneficially owned by its controller is a
high fact-specific issue. 'It is not possible to give general
guidance.'
He said judges were sometimes entitled to ask whether 'terms' were really what they were said to be or 'simply a sham'.
