Pub baron’s wife claims he hid part of $70 million in their divorce battle

A pub baron is at war with his ex, who claims he has hidden his millions in his family’s vast business empire.

Hands of three men toasting with beer

A wealthy Australian pub and hospitality baron is embroiled in a bitter divorce case where his wife claims he has hidden part of his $70 million in his family’s complex network of businesses.

The Family Court of Australia has now ordered the wife to nominate “no less than three” independent valuers to put a price on the assets, which includes seven venues and five properties.

The woman was unsuccessful in convincing Justice Robert Harper that her ex owns the assets, or has a financial interest in them, according to a recently published judgment from the case.

But the judge ordered the assets be valued with the case to continue and the woman to resume her attempts to uncover how much she is entitled to in their asset split.

The couple cannot legally be named because of laws that suppress the identities of parties before the court.

COMPLEX CORPORATE, TRUST STRUCTURE

There are estimated to be almost 7000 pubs and nightclubs in Australia.

The husband is a member of a wealthy pub and hospitality family, leaving a question of what actually belonged to him as opposed to the rest of his family.

Judge Robert Harper told the court the man’s financial interests are “located in a complex structure of corporations and trusts.”

The wife launched the case in late 2022 and has asked the court to award her spousal maintenance and a property settlement.

The wife told the court the “value of the husband’s interest is very large” and was “possibly up to $70 million.”

The husband disagreed and said the value was much lower.

In late 2022, the couple agreed on spousal maintenance and a partial property settlement.

But the wife claimed the husband was hiding tens of millions worth of other assets.

This included the venues and properties.

The properties were not listed in the husband’s name but the wife claimed she was entitled to at least a portion of them because “the husband enjoyed any proprietary interest in those properties…”, the court heard.

When it came to the venues, the wife claimed the husband’s interest was hidden in a “complex corporate and trust structure” that was part of the extended family’s operation.

The wife showed the court a “diagram” that illustrated the “complex structure” and where she said her husband’s interest fell.

SIBLING’S PAYMENT

She claimed to have formulated the husband’s wealth based on previous calculations that were used to pay out the man’s sibling when they exited the family business.

However, the judge rejected the argument and told the court that calculation was made using an alternative corporate structure, meaning it did not apply to the current dispute.

The wife tendered bank documents from the operation that said the man “is effectively the group’s CEO”. But the judge said the document “does not take the wife’s argument very far”.

This was because it only stated that the husband had a 20 per cent “beneficial interest” but did not define exactly what that applied to.

“Even if the husband is “effectively” CEO of the “group”, it does not follow that he should be held to have any legal or equitable interest in the disputed items because he holds such a senior management position,” Justice Harper told the court.

“The present evidence does not allow any clear conclusion to be formed at this stage,” he told the court.

The wife’s claim that the businesses were a financial resource of the husband because they had taken loans where the money “ultimately found its way to the husband” was also rejected by the judge.

This was because it was not evidence of a “direct financial resource”.

“I am not satisfied that the wife has demonstrated … that there is sufficient reason to conclude that the husband has an interest in any of the disputed items which may be capable of specific valuation so as to ultimately form part of the balance sheet at final hearing,” the judge told the court.

Originally published as Pub baron’s wife claims he hid part of $70 million in their divorce battle