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
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
