High Court Issues Latest Ruling On Long-Running Case

A High Court judge has ruled that a businessman will only be able to appeal against his four-week suspended prison sentence if he provides his ex-wife his funds to cover the legal fees incurred at a further hearing.

Earlier this year, Michael Prest was given the four-week term suspended for three months after it was concluded that he had breached a court order by refusing or neglecting to hand over funds of around £360,000 to his former wife Yasmin.

In a hearing today (October 15th), it was subsequently decided he would only be able to challenge that sentence if he provides his ex-wife with the money to cover potential legal fees which might be generated at an appeal hearing.

Lady Justice Gloster said he should pay £20,000 to cover the costs and that if he fails to do so within 28 days, his appeal would go no further.

Expert Opinion

Although the majority of divorce cases are resolved constructively between the parties, some cases present issues which dictate that a robust and uncompromising stance is taken by the court. Prest is one of a number of high profile cases where one of the parties has been found to be in breach of a court order. The latest developments in this case are a stark reminder of how courts continue to take a tough and hard hitting stance on parties who do not comply with court orders made against them. <br/> <br/>"The courts are also increasingly focused on ensuring there is equality in seeking access to justice, in terms of how parties are able to fund litigation and legal costs, especially if that litigation is driven by one party who is frustrating the court process. <br/> <br/>"For a number of divorce clients with assets significantly lower to those involved in this case, their ex-partners may hold or control the majority of assets. Such people face a cashflow problem, and so face a similar challenge in being unable to fund their legal support. <br/> <br/>"The courts have a number of options available to them to address this, including making a 'legal services order' for a wealthier party to provide funds in certain circumstances which their ex-partner will then use to fund legal fees or, as shown in this case, preventing a party from progressing with litigation until funds are allocated to meet the costs of the other party. <br/> <br/>"An issue of this nature demonstrates why it is essential that those who are separating always attempt to seek legal advice at the earliest possible opportunity."