'Sadistic, unprincipled rogue' ordered to pay £17million divorce settlement to his former model ex-w

12:02 | 04.12.2014
'Sadistic, unprincipled rogue' ordered to pay £17million divorce settlement to his former model ex-w

'Sadistic, unprincipled rogue' ordered to pay £17million divorce settlement to his former model ex-w

A businessman has been ordered to pay his wealthy ex-wife around £17million after a family court judge branded him a 'unprincipled rogue'.

Judge Sir Peter Singer said property investor Didier Thiry, 53, had shown a 'sadistic side to his personality' since his relationship with Alisa Thiry, 50, broke down.

Ms Thiry - who was previously married to Stephen Marks, founder of high street chain French Connection - pocketed a £37million divorce settlement a decade ago, said Sir Peter.

In her latest divorce, the former model claimed Mr Thiry refused to honour the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement and demanded he return a loan her company made to his during their marriage.

The judge said the eight-figure sum he awarded Ms Thiry could be described as 'restorative justice'. He also ordered Mr Thiry to pay Ms Thiry's £456,000 legal bills.

Details of the award emerged in a ruling by the judge following private hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

Sir Peter said the couple had separated in 2013 after marrying in 2006, having entered into a pre-nuptial agreement.

The judge said that, at the time of the agreement, Ms Thiry had disclosed assets of nearly £32.3million and Mr Thiry assets of about £8.3million.

Ms Thiry's lawyer, Shona Alexander, said after the ruling that her client had never sought any of Mr Thiry's money for herself.
'She solely tried to ensure that a clear pre-nuptial agreement was abided by,' said Ms Alexander.

'That agreement said that each of them should, if they divorced, simply be left in the same position they were in when they married.

She added: 'Accordingly, Ms Thiry has been trying to get back from Mr Thiry what was once hers alone, and which they agreed would always be hers alone in the future.

'Mr Thiry sadly refused to honour the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement.'

(dailymail.co.uk)

ANN.Az

0
Follow us !

REKLAM