Michelle Young faces court action by divorce investors

Divorce|June 9th 2015

Michelle Young, who became embroiled in a lengthy court battle with former husband Scot, now faces court action by investors in her litigation fund, a newspaper has reported.

The 50 year-old mother of two spent seven years pursuing her wealthy property developer ex-husband through the courts for a financial settlement, before eventually being awarded £20 million in November 2013. But she was unhappy with this award and continued to insist that he had concealed a fortune in offshore tax havens despite his claims of bankruptcy.

Scot Young died in an unexplained fall from his London flat late last year.

According to a Telegraph report, Michelle now faces legal action from a large group of investors. They allege that she did not spend all the funds invested on her legal costs. They claim that she owes them more than £11 million in total, saying she has turned down the court-ordered settlement and is therefore unable to pay them back. The group will announce plans to sue later this week, the paper reports.

Businessman Ash Edwards told the Telegraph that he invested in excess of £100,000 in Mrs Young’s litigation funds.

“She needed money to prove what Scott Young had done and we funded her to do that, with the obvious anticipation of getting a return on our investment. But as the years have gone by we have seen no progress made on getting back our investment.”

Michelle Young firmly denied the claims, telling the Telegraph:

“I utterly refute all allegations made against me in this regard. A payment was due to the funder only upon the receipt of assets.”

She continued:

“As my husband was declared bankrupt in 2010 and he died a sad and unexpected death in 2014, I unfortunately have not received a penny of the judgement awarded to me in November 2013. And the judge even admitted in his judgement that he doubted my husband would ever pay, and so I have never been in a position to pay anyone.”

Author: Stowe Family Law

Comments(3)

  1. Andrew says:

    Am I missing something here? Has the law of champerty been repealed in some Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act?

    If not this claim is doomed, isn’t it?

    Did Mr Scott know others were “investing” in the claim against him?

    If not should the claim not be re-opened and perhaps dismissed on the application of his personal representatives if he has any?

    • stitchedup says:

      Divorce Is an industry and industry has investors, though I’m sure they were only investing in the interest of children.

  2. Andrew says:

    Sorry, should be My Young, of course.
    .
    Some months ago Ms Young was given permission to hold a creditors’ meeting to try to replace the trustees in bankruptcy provided she paid the existing trustees’ costs up front first. Does anyone know whether she did so?

Leave a Reply

Close

Newsletter Sign Up

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

Privacy Policy