Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Taken to the cleaners (When will we bloody learn)

Recommended Posts

Nigerian Oil Tycoon Michael Prest Loses Divorce Battle to oyinbo wife Michael Prest is told to transfer properties held by firms owned and controlled by him to his ex-wife as part of a divorce award.



Nigerian Michael Prest has lost a legal battle with his estranged English wife Yasmin over a £17.5m divorce settlement.

The Supreme Court judgement marks the latest round of a lengthy legal cash dispute between the couple over the oil tycoon's fortune.

In October, the Court of Appeal ruled that a High Court judge had earlier wrongly ordered Mr Prest to transfer properties, worth millions of pounds and held in the names of companies he controlled, to Mrs Prest.

She then asked the Supreme Court - the highest court in the UK - to assess the case, where seven judges on Wednesday unanimously allowed Mrs Prest's appeal.

Mr Prest, founder of Nigerian energy company Petrodel Resources, claimed to be worth about £48m.

But Mrs Prest said he was worth much more than than that - "tens if not hundreds of millions" of pounds.

She said after the decision: "I'm delighted and relieved that the Supreme Court has ruled as it did.


"I'm grateful to the judges for the care and thought they gave the case.

"It is more a case of satisfaction and relief than celebration.

"None of this would have been necessary if Michael had been sensible and played fair."

Judges heard the couple - in their early 50s - married in 1993, spent most of their time in London, had properties in Nigeria and the Caribbean and lived to a "very high standard".

Lawyers said the new ruling could have significant implications for divorcing couples.

The challenge concerned the position of a number of companies belonging to the Petrodel Group which are "wholly owned and controlled" by Mr Prest.

One of the companies is the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another is the legal owner of two more.

The question the Supreme Court had to tackle was whether the court had power to order the transfer of the seven properties to Mrs Prest, given that they legally belonged to his companies, not him.

Allowing Mrs Prest's appeal, the court declared that the seven disputed properties vested in the companies were ones that Mr Prest was "entitled, either in possession or in reversion".

Mr Prest was not in court to hear the judgement being delivered.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this