Russian oligarch’s ex-wife says their son has played ‘central role’ in putting £450m beyond reach

Russian oligarch’s ex-wife says their son has played ‘central role’ in putting £450m she was awarded in Britain’s biggest-ever divorce beyond her reach

  • Tatiana Akhmedova awarded a 41.5 per cent share of former husband’s fortune
  • However judges have heard she has so far received about £5 million of his assets
  • She will now be taking legal action against her eldest son Temur Akhmedov

A Russian billionaire’s former wife is taking legal action against her eldest son who she claims played a ‘central role’ in placing the £450million she was owed by her ex-husband  beyond her reach.  

Tatiana Akhmedova, 52, was awarded a 41.5 per cent share of businessman Farkhad Akhmedov’s £1 billion-plus fortune by Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, who analysed the case at a trial in the Family Division of the High Court in London, in late 2016. 

However judges have heard she has only received about £5 million of the amount she was owed and that Mr Akhmedov, has not ‘voluntarily’ paid a penny. 

The former wife to the oil and gas tycoon is now taking legal action against her own son, Temur, whom she claims has put the assets beyond her reach.  

Tatiana Akhmedova, 52, who was awarded a 41.5 per cent share of businessman Farkhad Akhmedov’s £1 billion-plus fortune, has claimed her eldest son has put the assets beyond her reach

The former wife to the Russian billionaire is  taking legal action against her eldest son Temur Akhmedov (pictured)

The former wife to the Russian billionaire is  taking legal action against her eldest son Temur Akhmedov (pictured)

A barrister who leads her legal team told a judge analysing the latest stage of litigation, at a virtual hearing in the Family Division of the High Court on Wednesday, about Temur’s ‘central role’.

Alan Gourgey QC told Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles that Temur had received tens of millions of pounds from his father, and added: ‘The evidence shows that Temur has played a central role in putting assets beyond Tatiana’s reach.’

Temur, a trader who lives in London and is aged in his mid-twenties, disputes allegations made against him.

He says his father said money would be available to invest on the financial market.

Mrs Justice Knowles is considering a number of preliminary issues and further hearings are scheduled for later in the year.

Ms Akhmedova’s former husband has said that because he and his ex-wife are not British, and were not married in Britain, a British judge should not have made decisions.  

However Ms Akhmedova claims he tried to put assets, including a £346 million yacht – the MV Luna – and a modern art collection, beyond her reach.   

The former couple divorced in Moscow in 2003. 

Yesterday it was revealed that Temur Akhmedov was fighting to stop detail of his personal financial information being made public. 

Farkhad Akhmedov said that because he and his ex-wife are not British and were not married in Britain, a British judge should not have made decisions

Farkhad Akhmedov said that because he and his ex-wife are not British and were not married in Britain, a British judge should not have made decisions

Ms Akhmedova, who was awarded £453 million after her marriage,  has so far received about £5 million

Ms Akhmedova, who was awarded £453 million after her marriage,  has so far received about £5 million

A judge has analysed arguments about Temur’s bid to limit what journalists can reveal about the latest round of litigation following the breakdown of Farkhad Akhmedov’s marriage to Tatiana Akhmedova.

Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles, who is overseeing a, virtual, public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court, is due to deliver a ruling on his application in the near future.    

Mrs Justice Knowles is overseeing the latest stage of the dispute, which involves Mr Akhmedov’s son, at a virtual hearing in the Family Division of the High Court.

She told lawyers: ‘The real problem may well be Farkhad Akhmedov, who had deliberately sought to thwart the English court, and is therefore a shadowy figure in this litigation.’