Supreme Court to hear high-stakes Prest divorce case
The former wife of oil tycoon Michael Prest is to take her case to the Supreme Court in March next year after the Court of Appeal (CoA) ruled against her claim that Prest should be forced to hand over assets totalling £17.5m.
The appeal at the Supreme Court for one of 2012’s most high-profile divorce cases is due to take place on 5-6 March after the CoA overturned an earlier High Court ruling (26 October 2012).
Last year High Court judge Mr Justice Moylan ordered Mr Prest, the founder of Nigerian energy company Petrodel Resources, to hand over £17.5m to Yasmin Prest, his former wife of 15 years. However, a first instance judge later said that, as Mr Prest was unlikely to hand over the assets given that he had flouted court orders, he should transfer 14 properties in the UK and abroad that were held by Petrodel Resources and other companies owned by him to his former wife as part payment.
Following an appeal by both companies, the CoA reversed the decision, with Lord Justices Patten, Rimer and Thorpe giving Mrs Prest permission to appeal to the Supreme Court over their ruling that her former husband need not transfer ownership of the properties to her.
For the Supreme Court hearing next year Mrs Prest will again turn to Farrer & Co partner Jeremy Posnansky QC, who instructed Richard Todd QC and Stephen Trowell QC for the appeal. It is understood that Posnansky will also work with company law barrister Daniel Lightman of Serle Court, who was not involved at the CoA, in the Supreme Court hearing.
As with the appeal, the companies will turn to Jeffrey Green Russell solicitor Sarah Ingram, family law silk Tim Amos QC of Queen Elizabeth Buildings and Erskine Chambers’ Ben Shaw.
Commenting at the time of the appeal in October, Posnansky said: “It’s a great pity that years of case law and practice which have enabled family law judges to do justice between divorcing couples have been overturned by this non-unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal.”
Readers' comments (2)
Anonymous | 11-Dec-2012 5:20 pm
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
Chicago Divorce Attorney | 12-Dec-2012 5:49 am
I think she should not going against the supreme court.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment