AFTER hearing the appeal of the
former wife of one of Britain’s richest men for over two days last week, seven
Supreme Court Judges of the United Kingdom (UK), including the President
of the Supreme Court – Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbuty – will, over the
next few months, deliver what could be a landmark judgement in the bitter
divorce suit between Itsekiri multi-millionaire oil tycoon, Michael Prest, and
his former English wife, Yasmin Aishatu Prest.
The couple, who have four children, oldest is 15, met and married
in London in 1993. They lived happily thereafter till a bitter split in 2008.
In what is the third and obviously the final round of the legal
tussle that has cost Prest and his former wife about £3 million in legal fees
to divorce lawyers, Mrs. Prest, 50, has prayed the highest court of
the UK to quash the ruling of the Court of Appeal (England and
Wales), which ruled that 51-year-old Prest could use Nigerian Customary
law to shield his multimillion assets from being split with his former
wife. The judges, six men and Lady Hale of Richmond, will, in the coming
months, give the ruling, which will set legal precedence for similar cases
involving legal disputes between husbands and wives in Great Britain.
On Friday, Supreme Court sources told The Guardian that the “judgement
doesn’t come that quickly. It takes a couple of months for the Judges to
deliver their judgement after a case has finished,” when asked how soon the
judgement would be delivered.
Prior to dragging her former husband before the Law Lords last
week, the High Court had, in October 2011, ruled that Prest should
give a lump sum of £17.5 million of his wealth and some London
properties as settlement to his former wife, after she asked for
over £30million maintenance payout and £730,000
per annum to cover “reasonable needs” for both herself and their four
children.
However, he headed straight for the Court of Appeal and in
February last year, citing Itsekiri Customary Law. In October, his
lawyers won the appeal and got an order slashing the High Court ruling by
almost £9 million. Thereby, reducing his wife’s payout to over £8 million.
Citing the customary Nigerian law, lawyers representing Prest said
the oil tycoon, having lost his father – who set him up in business with a seed
gift of £10,000 before his death in 1992- is not only the head of
his extended family, but also responsible for the welfare of his four brothers
and their children.
Besides, Prest’s lawyers argued that by virtue of the same
Nigerian Customary Law, the assets of their client belong to the family and not
solely those of their multimillionaire client.
In essence, what Prest’s lawyers and those of the three
companies - Petrodel Resources Ltd, Petrodel Upstream Ltd. and Vermount
Petroleum Ltd - he owns, said last week was that, under Nigerian Customary Law,
those three oil companies and their assets belong to their client’s
family and not solely his.
The companies are all registered in the Isle of Man.
But Mrs. Prest’s lawyers based their arguments on Section 24(1)(a)
of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, to ask the Judges to reverse the order, which
Prest got at the Appeal Court in October last year, where his lawyers had
invoked Nigerian Customary law to quash the order of the High Court.
Also added to the prayer of his former wife is the fact that
Prest, who resides in Monaco, had not even paid the mother of his four children
neither the lump sum, which was slashed by nearly half nor the
£270, 000 –a –year allowance, which the Court ordered him to pay her.
Her lawyer argued that if his client lost this case, other husbands would
similarly be able to dishonestly use this legal precedence to hide their assets
behind a corporate veil, thereby denying their wives a fair slice of their
fortune.
Mrs. Prest’s legal team also underlined the fact that if the case
went against their client, the Marital Causes Act – a legislation meant to give
divorcing spouses a fair share of their assets – would become meaningless.
Although the court was told that Mrs. Prest still lives in their
£4 million marital home in Bayswater, West London, and that her former husband
is paying over £100,000 per annum in school fees for the couple’s four
children’s education in private schools, he has refused to obey courts orders
that he should pay her massive legal costs.
Moreover, he has been handing out just a meagre £150 per week as
maintenance allowance. Her lawyers went further, accusing him of using a
“cheats charter” to hide his oil money in offshore companies.
Mrs. Prest’s barrister, Richard Todd QC –Queen’s Counsel, the
equivalent of SAN - told the court on Tuesday that: “It is not hyperbole to say
that this is a case where, if the companies succeed, this wife will be rendered
destitute. They say it is not the case that this is a “cheats charter,” even
though it would result in Mr. Prest and his companies coming away with tens of
millions of pounds, while the wife is reduced to claiming benefits. They
say it is not a “cheats charter’ because there are potentially other remedies
available to the wife. We say this is not so.” He described his client’s former
husband as someone who has exhibited a strong desire to “thwart the intentions
of the court.”
Todd also said that coupled with this is the wrong signal that
this judgement –if it went against Mrs. Prest - would send out to other warring
couples across the UK. “It would be a simple matter to incorporate a company,
or better still use a company already incorporated, in order to retain assets
and make them judgement –proof in a case such as this. This would be that very
“cheats charter,” and more importantly, “it would reduce the Matrimonial Causes
Act to being nothing more than a scarecrow.”
Although Prest claims he wants to give his former wife shares in
the companies, her lawyer would rather his client have nothing to do with that.
Todd told the court that waiting to get a slice of the companies would be a
wasteful exercise for his client. Basing his argument on the way the
companies’ ownership is structured, Todd noted that Prest had already woven
such a “web of deceit in respect of ownership of these shares that it would be
impossible to ever work out what the position is.”
He compared entering into any agreement with his client’s former
husband as being equivalent to her “being led in a merry dance without
any reward.” Continuing, Todd added: “The husband who is resident in
Monaco, simply uses these companies as his piggy bank,” noting that although
“he is supposed to be paying Mrs Prest £270,000 per annum, but he simply
chooses not to pay that.”
Todd made it clear that Mr Prest “is paying Mrs Prest £150
cash per week - £7,800 per annum , a little bit less than the minimum
wage.”
Source: Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment