Four-week suspended sentence for former husband who failed to pay divorce settlement
High Court finds Michael Prest had wilfully refused or neglected to pay maintenance
High Court finds Michael Prest had wilfully refused or neglected to pay maintenance
Multi-millionaire oil tycoon, Michael Prest, has been handed a suspended jail sentence for failing to pay his ex-wife her divorce settlement.
Prest's former wife had asked the High Court to send her ex-husband to prison after he allegedly failed to pay her the £17.5m she was awarded in their divorce settlement.
Mr Justice Moylan concluded that Prest had failed to make a lump sum payment and periodical payments to his wife and their four children.
The judge said the four week sentence would be suspended for three months and concluded that Prest owed his former wife and children more that £360,000 in unpaid maintenance.
Mr Justice Moylan said he was satisfied that Prest had the means to pay and had refused or neglected to do so.
President of Vardags, Ayesha Vardag, who has previously acted for Ms Prest in the divorce proceedings, said: "This is a very welcome decision. The Family Courts are finally showing they have teeth. It's the only way we're going to get a justice system that actually works."
|
John Nicholson is a specialist divorce and family lawyer at Irwin Mitchell "The courts have for some years now been inclined to use jail as a last resort when Children Act orders have been flouted repeatedly; it's good to see them taking the same stance in financial cases with this latest ruling in the long-running and high profile Prest v Petrodel divorce battle. "While the sentence is not as severe as the Scott Young decision last year, which related to disclosure of information, it shows that family judges are not afraid to flex their muscles as they attempt to ensure all parties are complying with financial court orders. "In this case, the courts have decided how much Prest should pay to his ex-wife, a judge has found that he has the means to pay, yet he has not paid her the funds. It is one thing for the courts to decide on a fair settlement - it is another situation entirely to ensure that any payments will be made. It seems only right that the courts continue to send out a signal that non-compliance will not be tolerated - they have effectively given him three months to comply otherwise he will be facing jail. "The Prest v Petrodel case has shown that the family law courts still have the power to look closely at the nature of corporate holdings and make orders based on the concept of constructive or resulting trusts, even if that appears to conflict with the result that one might anticipate where two companies were contracting at arm's length within corporate law." |
'Judges are not afraid to flex their muscles'