News

Tycoon worth £34 million paid ‘prestigious’ law firm £95,000 to help prove he couldn’t pay ex-wife £200,000

By on
26

High Court described it as an ‘affront to justice’

High Court judge

An Omani businessman worth a reported £34 million has told the High Court that he’s unable to pay his ex-wife more than £200,000 in maintenance and legal fees, despite dishing out almost £100,000 to his own lawyers to help fight the case.

The unnamed tycoon, who lives in Oman, was previously ordered by the High Court to pay his London-based ex-wife and children £40,000 a month maintenance for six months.

However, the man later told Mr Justice Holman that his assets were “illiquid and unrealisable” and that his family business had suffered a “considerable reverse” since the collapse of infrastructure giant Carillion.

However, Justice Holman didn’t agree and pointed to the fact the wealthy businessman had been able to pay £95,000 to the “prestigious” law firm which is representing him. The recently released judgment reveals that having parted ways with renowned divorce specialists Vardags, the businessman was now being represented by London litigation outfit Stewarts Law.

The 2018 Firms Most List

Describing the move as an “affront to justice”, Justice Holman imposed what is known as a ‘pound for pound’ order, meaning the man cannot pay his lawyers a pound without handing over the same sum to his ex-wife’s solicitors. The judge said:

“I wish to stress very clearly indeed that it is not intended to deny, nor is it denying, him the means of obtaining legal advice. As far as I am concerned, he can go straight out and pay £100,000 to Stewarts Law for further legal advice, the only condition is that he also pays pound for pound £100,000 to the wife’s solicitors.”

The businessman owes his former wife £130,000 in legal costs and further £100,000 in unpaid maintenance, according to the judgment.

At a hearing in April, the High Court heard how the couple had allegedly clashed on a number of issues including the use of a private chauffeur and the “tendency of the wife to smoke or vape in the cars in the presence of the drivers”.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

26 Comments

Anonymous

A supertax on this greed!

Unbelievable surplus wealth!

These people should have their property requisitioned for the common wealth!

VOTE CORBYN! WE NEED SOCIALISM!!!!

(7)(36)

Anonymous

What

a

penis.

(4)(4)

Anonymous

I’m sure that’ll have a big effect on Omani people who live in Oman. Moron.

(7)(1)

Anonymous

We can just invade

(0)(0)

Anonymous

A wife that vapes? Now it’s clear why he wanted a divorce

(29)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

oh, jeremy corbyn

(2)(13)

Anonymous

The children must be so proud of daddy. What a stand up guy.

(19)(4)

Anonymous

Oman is an island, entire of itself…

(23)(0)

Anonymous

Well done

(2)(1)

Anonymous

Thank you. May I continue?

No man is an island. Apart from the Isle of Man. And Barry Island.

(15)(0)

Anonymous

😂

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Thank you too.

I have nothing more.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

In your life? That’s kinda sad…

(0)(0)

Irritated of counsel

“Justice Holman”

I’m getting fed up with this. I see it on here and in newspapers.

This is not America. It is either “Mr Justice Holman” or “Holman J”.

(42)(0)

Anonymous

What do you expect?

(2)(1)

Anonymous

The Patriarchy at work.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

What a #lad!!

(2)(1)

Anonymous

I came here for the comments

Marvellous

(1)(0)

Anastacia

This story is unbelievably fascinating. You should definitely go and find others’ opinions on Lawbla: the Uk’s only functioning legal discussion forum for lawyers:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/lawbla/forum-f2/

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Rather avoid Clergham moaning about edinburgh

(4)(1)

Zorro

“This story is unbelievably fascinating”

What fresh gimpery is here? Way to destroy lawbla’s reputation.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

No firm which practises family “law” is prestigious.

(16)(9)

Anonymous

Least of all, Stewarts, which is a personal injury and family firm which shamelessly masquerades as a commercial firm, and only has a high PEP because the equity is shared among about 10 people.

(14)(2)

Anonymous

Get cameras into the court room right now.

Zoom in on the judge as he hands down his ‘Pound for pound’ speech.

Zoom in on the businessman, as his left eye twitches. Pure television.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Any firm which practises family “law” cannot by definition be described as prestigious.

(7)(3)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories