The estranged wife of a Scots property tycoon has criticised a High Court judge's verdict as "disgraceful" after she was awarded only a fraction of the fortune she was seeking from her "penniless" husband.
Scot Young, 51, who is originally from Dundee and claimed to have nothing left from his business empire, was yesterday ruled to be worth £40 million following Michelle Young's extraordinary legal fight at the High Court in London.
But Mrs Young, 49, angrily criticised the decision after she was awarded a £20m settlement by Mr Justice Moor and continued to insist Mr Young is worth billions.
In a further blow, the judge ruled she should pay £1.5m of her £6.5m legal fees - with Mr Young paying the rest - and she faces uncertainty about how she will get her money from Mr Young.
Mrs Young said: "It's disgraceful. He's worth billions. Many people will be watching this and think it's a fortune, but at the moment all this order is a piece of paper."
She will now try to appeal against the verdict, adding: "This isn't over."
Mr Young's passport - seized by the court more than four years ago - is to be returned to him.
Mr Young, who says he suffered a financial "meltdown" seven years ago, said afterwards: "I don't want to say anything."
Mr Justice Moor assessed Mr Young to be worth £40m - after analysing evidence at a hearing in the Family Division of the court -and yesterday added his wife was entitled to half. However, he said he believed Mr Young had "hidden" £45m from him. He arrived at the sum by deducting £5m of debts.
He said he knew Mrs Young would find it hard to enforce his order, but said Mr Young would never be free of the debt.
He said the litigation, which began more than six years ago, had been "quite extraordinary".
"Mr Young has misled the court very significantly as to his financial position," said the judge. "Effectively, he has been responsible for this litigation. It is undoubtedly the most difficult financial remedy case I have ever come across."
The judge had heard the Youngs, who live in London and have two daughters, separated in 2006 after starting a relationship in 1989.
Mrs Young, who had employed 13 sets of lawyers and four sets of accountants over the years, claimed Mr Young had hidden "a vast fortune". She claimed she was a victim of fraud and said Mr Young had manipulated his affairs so as to do her down.
Mr Young said he was bankrupt, penniless and had debts adding up to £28m.
The judge criticised Mr and Mrs Young. He said Mr Young was "hiding the truth" and was not "a penniless man of straw with huge debts". But he said Mrs Young's evidence had not been reliable and she saw "conspiracy everywhere".
Mr Justice Moor said Mrs Young wanted to live in a "prime central London location".
He added: "If the husband is worth hundreds of millions of pounds, as she contends, it would be perfectly reasonable for her to own a £20m property in Belgravia but, if he is not, she will have to set her sights somewhat lower."
He also accused Mrs Young of exaggerating the value of gifts given to her by Mr Young, including claims over the value of jewellery she said she auctioned for £160,000 to £180,000.
Mrs Young's lawyer Catherine Thomas said: "This case has been among the most complex in English divorce law history, in which a number of high-profile witnesses were called." She added the verdict sent a strong message to people around the world who seek to hide their true wealth from their spouse.
Philippa Dolan, a specialist family lawyer at Ashfords Solicitors, said Mrs Young might find it difficult to persuade Mr Young to pay up. "It's hard to feel that sorry for a wife who's furious she's only been awarded £20m, regardless of how much her husband may or may not be worth."
"Whether she is able to enforce it is another matter, of course."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article