A Nigerian oil tycoon lost a legal fight with  his estranged English wife today in a landmark court case over a £17.5m divorce  settlement.

The Supreme Court ruled that properties owned  by 51-year-old Michael Prest’s companies did count as his, and therefore should  be counted as his assets in the high-profile divorce battle between him and  ex-wife Yasmin, 50.

Lawyers say the decision, which overturned an  earlier Appeal Court ruling that Mr Prest’s companies could not be taken into  account when calculating the divorce payout, could have significant implications  for divorcing couples.

This morning’s Supreme Court  judgment, which  followed a hearing in London in March, was the latest round of a lengthy legal  battle between the couple, who married in 1993 and spent most of  their time in  their £5m matrimonial home in London’s Maida Vale.

Mrs Prest, who has four children by her  ex-husband, said after the decision was announced: ‘I’m delighted and relieved  that the Supreme Court has  ruled as it did.

‘I’m grateful to the judges for the  care and  thought they gave the case.  It is more a case of satisfaction  and relief  than celebration.

‘None of this would have been necessary if  Michael had been sensible and played fair.’

In October, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr  Prest did not have to hand property worth millions of pounds to Mrs  Prest.

Appeal  judges concluded that a High  Court judge had earlier wrongly ordered Mr Prest,  who is now based in  Monaco, to transfer properties held in the names of  offshore companies  he controlled.

Their decision came after Mr Prest  claimed  that the millions of pounds held in cash and property by  companies he owned did  not count as his assets.

Mrs Prest then asked the Supreme Court – the  highest court in the UK – to analyse the case.

Judges heard that the couple, who  married in  1993, spent most of their time in London, had properties in  Nigeria and the  Caribbean and lived to a ‘very high standard’.

They were told that Mr Prest claimed to be  worth about £48m, but Mrs Prest  said he was worth ‘tens if not hundreds of  millions’ of pounds.

Mr Prest, who now faces having to pay an  estimated £3m legal bill, was not in court to hear the judgement as seven  Supreme Court justices  unanimously allowed Mrs Prest’s appeal today.

Supreme Court President Lord  Neuberger, and  Lords Sumption, Clarke, Mance, Wilson and Walker and Lady Hale said that the  companies were held in trust for the husband and  became family  property.

They ruled that under English law in certain  circumstances the courts can  ‘disregard’ and ‘pierce the corporate veil’ in  order to reach the  assets.

They concluded that seven properties held by  Mr Prest’s Petrodel Group were properties to  which he was ‘entitled’ – even if  he did not own them personally –  and  therefore should be counted as  assets in the couple’s divorce.

However justice Lord Sumption warned that it  was not possible to generalise about whether a company’s owner was always  entitled to its assets.

He said: ‘Whether assets legally vested in a  company are beneficially owned by its controller is a high fact-specific  issue.

‘It is not possible to give general  guidance.’

He said judges were sometimes entitled to ask  whether ‘terms’ were really what they were said to be or ‘simply a  sham’.

Read more: DailyMail