Upcoming Events :
Housing Seminar: Partnerships with the Public Sector – Avoiding the pitfalls
Thu 31 May 2012
Minerva House, 5 Montague Close, London, SE1 9BB
Financier's former wife secures £12.5m divorce payout
Mon 23 Jan 2012
The High Court in London has ordered an international financier to pay £12.5 million to his former wife after initially refusing to give her a settlement.
Boris Agrest, who comes from Russia, split up from Janna Kremen five years ago following their marriage in 1991.
After their separation, he said he would leave his ex-wife and children destitute and therefore refused to pay maintenance for his family, including costly public school fees.
However, the court heard that Mr Agrest had taken various steps during the marriage to stop his ex-wife from getting a share of his fortune if they split.
For instance, Ms Kremen was required to sign a post-nuptial agreement that limited her claim on his assets more than a decade ago.
Furthermore, Mr Agrest later argued that he had not officially divorced his first wife at the time he tied the knot with Ms Kremen, which meant their marriage was invalid and that she had no right to a share of his wealth.
Mr Justice Mostyn, the judge in the case, said the post-nuptial agreement was "grossly unfair" and a "sham", before describing Mr Agrest as a selfish, aggressive and domineering "serial non-discloser [of assets]".
Jacqueline Major, a solicitor at Winckworth Sherwood, commented: "The aim of financial provision law in England and Wales is to provide a "fair" result, and to ensure that any children are the first consideration. The wife and the children here had needs - the need to be housed, and the need for income for their maintenance. Where there are assets over and above the parties needs, any surplus falls to be shared.
"The husband did all he could to try to defeat the wife's legal claims. He first tried to rely on a post nuptial agreement that severely limited her claims. Post nuptial agreements can be taken into account, provided they make fair financial provision and have been entered into without duress, and with full understanding.
"In this case, the learned Judge was unimpressed with the post nuptial agreement and refused to take it into consideration.
"The husband tried to claim the marriage was not valid - which if legally correct would have meant the wife could only claim financial provision for the children, not for herself. Again the Judge was unimpressed.
"The Judge also talks of the husband refusing to give disclosure of his assets. It is a cornerstone of the financial provision process that both parties give full and frank disclosure. The husband's wilful refusal to cooperate, together with all the other tactics he employed to try to defeat the wife's claims, led to Mostyn J's damning comments in his judgement and a generous award to the wife.
"However, as all expert family solicitors are only too aware, the award is only half the battle - actually enforcing it and securing the money is Janna Kremen's real issue."
