Supreme Court to hear high-stakes Prest divorce case

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • It is my understanding that the company was the brainchild of the late Michael Prest who died in 1992 and that this company was formed BEFORE the marriage of late Michael Prest's son and his wife. What’s more several of the assets now being claimed by the wife were purchased prior to the marriage. It’s a well-known fact that the Company has given a tremendous opportunity to many young Africans seeking a needed first step into the oil business and several of these young people now hold front line positions in international and African oil trading companies. What’s more the wife obtained her MBA from Cranfield was sponsored for the same by the company in 1994 and was then encouraged to manage the property arm of the company for 14 years. Even the wife’s father was a board member of the Company from 1993 – 2010. The wife’s youngest sister was also trained by the company and then worked there in a management capacity as far back as 2004. The company was set to up to trade as both agent and then principal in the oil markets and not set up to defeat the wife’s ancillary relief claims. It is inconceivable that the wife’s team's claim that the company is a sham or a device set up some 18 years ago to defeat her 2011 ancillary relief claim could be true. Her lawyers caused this problem for her and she should now grasp this and cause no further damage to the company and the numerous staff that work there and who are now concerned that they may lose their jobs and their livelihood.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think she should not going against the supreme court.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (2)