Young v Young

Michelle and Scot Young's divorce reached its seven-year court crescendo in November, with Scot being ordered to pay his ex-wife £20m and Michelle reportedly outraged by the "disgraceful" sum remaining adamant that her former husband was worth billions.

The couple started living together in 1989, married in 1995, had two children and separated in 2006. The court considered this a marriage of significant length.

Six and a half years after Michelle commenced divorce proceedings and made a financial application (in June 2007), the case went to trial involving 65 hearings. It concluded with a 20-day final hearing. Forensic accountants considered 127,721 documents from electronic media and a further 39,239 pages of hard-copy documents.

HHJ Moor heavily criticised the conduct. While acknowledging that it had been one of the most complicated financial remedy cases that the court had ever seen, he still considered it "about as bad an example of how not to litigate as I have ever encountered".

The judge noted that Michelle had instructed three separate firms of solicitors to represent her and described their total costs as "truly eye-watering". She incurred legal costs of £400,000 with her first solicitors, £1m with the second and a £2.75m with the third and final firm. In addition, numerous expert reports were commissioned to investigate Scot's financial affairs. Her total legal costs amounted to £6.4m.

In sharp contrast, Scot largely represented himself and spent six months in prison for failing to fully disclose information about his finances. The judge described it as a "monumental battle" that ensued in an attempt to secure "full and frank financial disclosure" from the husband.

Michelle claimed that her former husband was worth hundreds of millions of pounds. He claimed insolvency with a deficit of £28m.

In relation to their married lifestyle, the judge preferred Scot's evidence. For example, Michelle alleged that their annual restaurant bill was £1m - they ate out a couple of times a week. The court found that even if they spent £5,000 each time that would only be £500,000 pa.

While acknowledging that their lifestyle had been very expensive, it had not been that lavish.

In recounting how Scot acquired his wealth, the court noted that he initially invested in a company involved in chip and pin sales (Dione Investments) in 1997, which was very successful up until 2006. He then continued to invest and accrue substantial profit from various technology companies and property deals.

Scot claimed that 2006 saw the implosion of his business empire leaving nothing but debts with HMRC, the Bank of Scotland and his business friends and colleagues. To the contrary, Michelle said that her husband realised his marriage was breaking down so manufactured an implosion while removing every asset he could and hiding it from her.

In conducting a comprehensive analysis of the considerable evidence, the judge found that Scot had indeed hidden assets from the court to a total value of £45m. Michelle was therefore awarded half this sum, which the court felt accorded with her reasonable needs: £20m.

Heather Viljoen is a solicitor at Michelmores

She writes regular case updates for Private Client Adviser