Michael and Yasmin Prest divorced in 2008 after 15 years of marriage, during which they had four children.
Michael Prest’s limited companies, in the Petrodel Group, were the legal owners of several properties and a court battle has taken place to rule whether these properties should be included as part of the husband’s assets in the divorce settlement.
Despite the fact that the properties were legally owned by the companies and not the husband himself, the High Court initially decided that the properties were assets which the husband did have an entitlement to and therefore awarded the wife various properties as part of the divorce settlement.
The Petrodel Group successfully appealed this ruling at the Court of Appeal, only for the wife to have that ruling over-turned at the Supreme Court. It upheld the original decision that various properties owned by the Petrodel Group of Companies were to be transferred to the wife in order to satisfy her £17.5 million award.
As the husband had purchased the properties using his own funds the Court decided that he did have an interest in them and thy therefore should be considered in the settlement.
Having looked into this case, it is pretty unique. The Supreme Court took a lot of particulars of this case into account and inferred that the husband’s reluctance to comply with court orders and his behaviour during the marriage played a part in its decision.
However, this ruling shows that putting assets into a company structure doesn’t necessarily mean they are protected against divorce claims.
This is a fair ruling and shows that a dishonest party cannot hide assets behind company structures. But it’s also important to stress that the ruling has not ignored the principles of Company Law, but it clarifies the law on the circumstances in which courts can lift the corporate veil.
When going through a divorce with a spouse who has a business involvement, it is important to get specialist family law advice.
Kerry Russell
