Tycoon 'so poor he's moved in with his son' after legal battle with ex

A tycoon who 'lost everything' in seven-year legal battle with his ex-partner claims he is now so poor he's had to move in with his son. 

Peter Andreewitch has spent the better part of a decade fighting it out with Magali Mourtreuil, 50, over ownership of their £2.2million Chelsea family home and an international property portfolio.

The 61-year-old had transferred all ownership shares in the company which owned the properties to Ms Moutreuil in a bid to avoid people finding out his true wealth and 'shield himself' from financial risk.

But when the couple, who raised five children together during their 19-year relationship, split up in 2017 he insisted the houses belonged to him sparking an acrimonious High Court battle.

Over the last four years Mr Andreewitch has ended up on the losing side of the argument, with a series of judges ruling against him and the tycoon even being given a suspended jail sentence for contempt of court.

Now a High Court judge has slammed him for his 'shifting' arguments and thrown out his attempts to overturn a decision to reject his bid for ownership of the properties.

The ruling he was attempting to appeal was made last year by Judge Michael Jefferis, who said that his attempts to regain ownership of the properties were an 'abuse of process'. 

Mr Andreewitch claimed the decision would 'finish' him, but decided to prolong the court battle by appealing, despite warnings doing so could wipe out the family fortune completely.

READ MORE

Tycoon, 60, tells court he'll be 'destitute' after losing multi-million pound property empire including £2.2m home to his ex in bitter legal battle

At a hearing in June 2023 the court heard that the properties had been owned by Mr Andreewitch through a company, Pier Investment Company Ltd, but that over 20 years ago he transferred 'the entirety of the shares in the company' to his then new girlfriend Ms Moutreuil. 

He made the move in a bid to 'shield' himself from 'future exposure' to creditors and 'conceal the existence' of his wealth, he had told a judge at an earlier hearing.

However he insisted he had never intended Ms Moutreuil to be the lawful beneficial owner of their London house, which Mr Andreewitch bought in 1993, and a string of other properties in Germany.

After their relationship broke down in 2017, but whilst they were still living together in the home with their kids, Mr Andreewitch began to insist to Ms Moutreuil that she had no rights or interests in the property, the court heard.

However she refused to back down to pressure from her wealthy ex-partner, who the court previously heard also has a number of 'UK properties'.

The court heard that, in 2020, Mr Andreewitch was handed a suspended jail term for contempt of court after being sued by his ex for spending some of the family fortune in breach of freezing injunctions.

Later the same year, he lost the first fight between the former lovers for ownership of the properties when a judge ruled they were beneficially owned by Ms Moutreuil.

His appeal application against the ruling was subsequently refused, but Mr Andreewitch fought on, launching a new bid for ownership, which was rejected as an 'abuse of process' by Judge Jefferis at the High Court last year.

Last month, Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Thompsell threw out another challenge by Mr Andreewitch, who had sought to appeal the judgment of Judge Jefferis.

As well as claiming he owned the properties, Mr Andreewitch had been arguing that he was owed money by the company, having paid in cash of his own to fund its purchase of the Chelsea house.

But the judge said that, whilst it was 'common ground that he had provided the company in 1993 with £264,000 which was used to buy the family home,' he could not now claim he was owed the money back because that contradicted arguments he had made during the committal proceedings.

'In his opening address, Mr Andreewitch looked to place this hearing within the context that, as a result of the court rulings he had lost everything and now is living with his son in extremely reduced circumstances,' he said.

'He clearly considered that he had been dealt with unjustly. I have every sympathy for the circumstances in which Mr Andreewitch finds himself.'

But he went on to criticise 'Mr Andreewitch's shifting position' in his arguments over the years, adding 'he should not have given a different and entirely incompatible explanation during the contempt proceedings'.

'It is quite clear that Judge Jefferis made his decision principally in relation to the abuse of process question,' he continued.

'He was aware that Mr Andreewitch had provided the money to purchase the property and that there was a matching creditor recorded in at least some versions of the accounts, but he considered that if Mr Andreewitch had wanted to rely on this point he should have dealt with the point in his evidence during the earlier hearings, whereas in fact his case at those hearings was incompatible with there being such a loan.

'I am both dismissing both Mr Andreewitch's appeal of the decision and order of Judge Jefferis.'

He said Mr Andreewitch 'technically has a further right to appeal' on one ground to the Court of Appeal, but 'as regards the other grounds of appeal, my decision in denying him permission to appeal is the end of the road.'