UK tycoon loses divorce ruling
Source: Agencies |
June 13, 2013, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
BRITAIN'S top court yesterday handed an oil tycoon a costly setback in a divorce case, ruling he must give his ex-wife assets held by companies he owns.
In a case with significant implications for wealthy divorcing couples, the Supreme Court ruled Nigeria-born Michael Prest should surrender seven properties to his estranged English wife, Yasmin.
Alison Hawes, a specialist family lawyer at law firm Irwin Mitchell, said the ruling meant "that business people cannot deliberately 'hide' their assets in businesses and corporate structures to protect them in future in the event of a divorce."
The couple, now in their 50s, married in 1993 and lived in Britain before divorcing in 2011. Michael Prest was ordered to transfer the properties as partial payment of a 17.5 million pound (US$27 million) settlement.
He challenged that decision, and last year the Court of Appeal ruled the companies constituted a separate legal entity and couldn't be included in the divorce.
But seven Supreme Court justices ruled the properties were assets to which Michael Prest was "entitled" and should be included in a divorce settlement.
Yasmin Prest said the judgment was "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 a case with significant implications for wealthy divorcing couples, the Supreme Court ruled Nigeria-born Michael Prest should surrender seven properties to his estranged English wife, Yasmin.
Alison Hawes, a specialist family lawyer at law firm Irwin Mitchell, said the ruling meant "that business people cannot deliberately 'hide' their assets in businesses and corporate structures to protect them in future in the event of a divorce."
The couple, now in their 50s, married in 1993 and lived in Britain before divorcing in 2011. Michael Prest was ordered to transfer the properties as partial payment of a 17.5 million pound (US$27 million) settlement.
He challenged that decision, and last year the Court of Appeal ruled the companies constituted a separate legal entity and couldn't be included in the divorce.
But seven Supreme Court justices ruled the properties were assets to which Michael Prest was "entitled" and should be included in a divorce settlement.
Yasmin Prest said the judgment was "more a case of satisfaction and relief than celebration. None of this would have been necessary if Michael had been sensible and played fair."
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 娌狪CP璇侊細娌狪CP澶05050403鍙-1
- |
- 浜掕仈缃戞柊闂讳俊鎭湇鍔¤鍙瘉锛31120180004
- |
- 缃戠粶瑙嗗惉璁稿彲璇侊細0909346
- |
- 骞挎挱鐢佃鑺傜洰鍒朵綔璁稿彲璇侊細娌瓧绗354鍙
- |
- 澧炲肩數淇′笟鍔＄粡钀ヨ鍙瘉锛氭勃B2-20120012
Copyright 漏 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
