Oil tycoon's wife warns husbands should 'beware' after landmark divorce victory - Telegraph.co.uk

But it overturns a crucial Court of Appeal decision that even if he "milked" his companies to fund an "extravagant lifestyle", handing the properties to his ex-wife would breach the "corporate veil" – a key legal safeguard preventing companies' assets being raided to pay the debts of shareholders.

The Supreme Court stopped short of ruling that divorce courts should be free to "pierce the corporate veil" because the way Mr Prest paid for the properties made clear that he was the effective owner.

Mrs Prest's lawyer Jeremy Posnansky QC, of Farrer & Co, said the ruling was a victory against "manipulative spouses" and said it was the most significant clarification on how to resolve clashes between company and family law for more than a century.

"It shows that dishonest husbands can't cheat their wives by hiding behind a web of deceit and a corporate façade," he said.

Mrs Prest said the case, which ran up massive costs, could have been avoided if her husband had "played fair.

She told The Daily Telegraph: "It is a great relief, but none of this should have been necessary.

"I have always hoped that the Supreme Court would reach this decision for the benefit of others who might find themselves in the same position.

"I hope it means that others won't have to suffer the struggle I have had.

"It should make no difference to those who behave honestly and fairly, but those who do not, should beware."

She insisted that the ruling would have implications not just for millionaires.

"It is important for everybody, whatever their financial situation, because it is about getting at the truth," she said.

Family lawyers said the ruling would secure London's reputation as the "divorce capital of the world" for wives and sweep away the "cheats' charter".

But others warned that it could instead created a "gold-diggers' charter" and open up family wealth up to "smash and grab raids".

Mr Prest is estimated to be worth at least £37.5 million, although his wife believes his fortune could be many times that.

The couple, who have four children, separated in 2008 after a 15-year marriage and were divorced 18 months ago.

Mr Justice Moylan awarded Mrs Prest a £17.5 million settlement in the form of the £4 million family home in London and a string of other properties, most of which she has yet to receive.

But that was by the Court of Appeal last year after a legal challenge brought by three of the companies.

Delivering the main judgment Lord Sumption said: "The husband's conduct of the proceedings has been characterised by persistent obstruction, obfuscation and deceit, and a contumelious refusal to comply with rules of court and specific orders."

He said it was impossible to give "general guidance" on such cases but remarked: "Judges exercising family jurisdiction are entitled to be sceptical about whether the terms of occupation [of properties] are really what they are said to be, or are simply a sham to conceal the reality of the husband's beneficial ownership."

Marilyn Stowe, a leading family lawyer, said the ruling was a "victory for common sense" adding: "England's reputation as the 'divorce capital of the world' for wives remains intact."

But James Copson, a partner at Withers, said it could threaten family wealth one-man businesses.

"Wealth planning professionals are going to have to devise something rather more special to stop wealth being snatched by unwanted visitors to a family's heart," he said.

"One-man companies are once again open to attack on divorce."