Multimillion-pound divorce battle from hell (From The Times)

Family Law|October 31st 2013

From The Times, 31 October 2013.

The Young case has exposed shortcomings in a civil law system reliant on voluntary, full, frank and honest disclosure, says Marilyn Stowe.

The final chapter in what has been dubbed “the multimillion-pound divorce battle from hell” is about to play out.

On one side, Michelle Young: convinced that her former husband has hidden his fortune, she has fought since 2006 to uncover his assets.

On the other: Scot Young, former “fixer” to Russian oligarchs, who insists that his £400 million business empire is long gone. A four-week final hearing begins in the High Court today.

Seven years in, the Young case resembles a high-stakes game of pass the parcel. Many of London’s glitziest family law teams have been involved. Forensic accountants have been called in. Investigators have criss-crossed the globe. Even the roll of alleged funders and sponsors includes some of the country’s best-known businessmen.

It is usually said of a case this lengthy that the only winners are the lawyers. When it comes to Young v Young, however, I am not so sure.

Among those to whom I have spoken in the past few weeks, there is an attitude that the case has been “too much” for family lawyers. I take issue with this: the strict rules regarding disclosure have played their part in this case, but are not restricted to family law. But it is, I think, fair to say that the Young case has exposed the shortcomings of a civil law system reliant in the main upon co-operation and voluntary, full, frank and honest disclosure.

Earlier this year, Mrs Young said: “I find it disgraceful the amount of money that has been allowed to be hidden offshore, and that it is legal to put assets out of reach in cases like mine.”

If Scot Young is indeed found to have made his assets “disappear”, he won’t be the first to have done so. Globalisation, along with the swiftness with which international business dealings can take place in 2013, has led many unscrupulous spouses to look overseas.

With the right support, however, today’s practitioners are well-placed to meet the challenges posed by such complex financial cases. M v M, another recent case in which the husband provided little by way of disclosure, is one example: appended to the judgment was an extraordinary chart created by barristers, showing how assets flowed between structures, individuals and intermediaries in Russia, Cyprus and beyond.

What sets the Young case apart is Mr Young’s refusal to comply with the court. Lawyers must act within the strict limits of the law and seek the assistance of the court where necessary. Yet in January 2013 Mr Young was jailed for contempt, after failing to provide court-ordered documentation about his personal finances. Imprisonment is exceptionally rare, and a last resort. So where can the court go from here?

Much will turn upon the judge. Mr Justice Moor is no stranger to the case: indeed, it was he who sentenced Scot Young earlier this year, describing Mr Young’s explanations as “absurd” and “next to useless.”

However any award may be a pyrrhic victory. If the monies are held offshore in complex structures, subject to the laws of different jurisdictions, why would foreign courts help Michelle Young? It might be in their own, wider interests to refuse to co-operate with any orders made by the court in England.

Ultimately in the civil court, justice depends on the voluntary submission of both parties to the court’s jurisdiction. Seven years in, Mrs Young’s battle may be far from over.

Marilyn Stowe is the senior partner at Stowe Family Law


The founder of Stowe Family Law, Marilyn Stowe is one of Britain’s best known divorce lawyers. She retired from Stowe Family Law in 2017.

Share This Post...


  1. Paul says:

    Who built the assets, her or him? It’s patently obvious why he doesn’t want her to take more than a sliver despite what her so-called legal entitlement might be.

  2. Billy Wright says:

    I believe it’s most likely going to be a pyyrhic victory. I have been watching this case with interest – I suppose her best bet would be to try and prove a conspiracy with Scots freinds and get the freinds on the hook. Perhaps they may then convince the husband to do a deal. I do think £300m is unreasonable to ask – it makes the wife seem unreasonable too – infact the other side of the same coin.

  3. Luke says:

    She is going to get many millions of pounds – so frankly I don’t care – I understand why lawyers care because there is a lot of money for them to make, but frankly from Joe Public there is ZERO sympathy for all parties concerned

  4. Divorce Easily says:

    It’s easy to be distracted by the enormous sums involved in this case. However, the wider issue of people complying with their financial disclosure obligations is relevant to all couples going through financial proceedings.

    Where there is a lot of money involved it is possible to pay for search, preservation and freezing orders. However, in cases involving more moderate assets this may not be proportionate. The Court must be seen to be very robust with non-disclosers in order to dissuade others from following their lead.

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy