Report comment

Tempted as I am to scoff at "apples and oranges" comparisons between this case and your average AR dispute the fact remains that family law has not kept pace with increasing levels of sophistication in the development of investments that can be hidden anywhere across the globe ready to re-emerge when the heat has died down.
Mrs Young ran her case ever clinging to a strongly held belief that her husband had put the greater proportion of his assets beyond her reach in order to frustrate any fair settlement of the matrimonial assets and it seems clear that her team/s of financial experts were unable to get anywhere near substantiating the true level of assets that Mr Young had spirited away.
Given that Mrs Young was shooting for a settlement from an estate believed to be in the billions it was not unreasonable of her to invest in the best advice.
There is nothing to suggest that Mrs Young was warned that her financial experts might come up much shorter than she was gunning for (otherwise it is unlikely she would have felt the need to make changes to her team) and so it is worth examining what they did to justify their fees.
As for the legal team, their brief was to take the matter all the way in the expectation (of Mrs Young at least) that the family law of England would help her achieve a fair distribution.
Sadly, Mrs Young has discovered what many AR claimants seeking provision from assets held abroad already know, your chances of getting your fair share are pretty slim at best.