Peter Andreewitch lost £2.2m Chelsea home in legal dispute with Ex-Partner.

A businessman who claims to have 'lost everything' after a lengthy seven-year legal dispute with his former partner says he is now so financially strained that he has had to move in with his son.

Peter Andreewitch has dedicated nearly ten years to battling Magali Mourtreuil, 50, over the rights to their £2.2 million family home in Chelsea and a collection of international properties. At 61, he had given all his ownership shares in the company that held the properties to Ms. Mourtreuil in an effort to conceal his actual wealth and protect himself from financial liabilities.

After the couple, who spent 19 years together raising five children, separated in 2017, he claimed the houses were his, leading to a contentious High Court dispute. In the past four years, Mr. Andreewitch has consistently lost his case, with multiple judges ruling against him. He even received a suspended jail sentence for contempt of court.

Recently, a High Court judge criticized him for his inconsistent arguments and dismissed his efforts to challenge a previous ruling that denied him ownership of the properties. The ruling he sought to appeal was issued last year by Judge Michael Jefferis, who deemed his attempts to reclaim the properties as an "abuse of process." Mr. Andreewitch argued that the ruling would leave him "finished," yet he chose to extend the legal fight by appealing, despite warnings that this could completely deplete the family fortune. At a hearing in June 2023, it was revealed that Mr. Andreewitch owned the properties through Pier Investment Company Ltd, but over 20 years ago, he transferred all the shares in the company to his then-new girlfriend, Ms. Moutreuil.

He took this step to protect himself from potential future claims by creditors and to hide his wealth, as he explained to a judge during a previous hearing.

Despite this, he maintained that he never meant for Ms. Moutreuil to be recognized as the legal owner of their London home, which Mr. Andreewitch purchased in 1993, along with several other properties in Germany. After their relationship ended in 2017, while they were still cohabiting with their children, Mr. Andreewitch began to assert to Ms. Moutreuil that she had no rights or claims to the property, according to court testimony. Nevertheless, she stood her ground against the pressure from her affluent ex-partner, who, as the court had noted, owns multiple properties in the UK.

The court also revealed that in 2020, Mr. Andreewitch received a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court after being sued by his ex for misusing part of their shared wealth in violation of freezing orders. Later that same year, he lost the initial legal battle over the properties when a judge determined that they were beneficially owned by Ms. Moutreuil.

Mr. Andreewitch's appeal against the ruling was ultimately denied, but he continued to fight, making another attempt to claim ownership, which Judge Jefferis at the High Court dismissed as an 'abuse of process' last year. Recently, Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Thompsell rejected yet another challenge from Mr. Andreewitch, who was trying to appeal Judge Jefferis's decision. In addition to asserting his ownership of the properties, Mr. Andreewitch argued that he was owed money by the company, claiming he had personally funded the purchase of the Chelsea house with cash.

Related: Why are some People Receiving Tax Refunds?

However, the judge noted that while it was acknowledged that Mr. Andreewitch had provided the company with £264,000 in 1993 for the family home, he could not now demand repayment, as this contradicted his previous statements made during the committal proceedings. In his opening remarks, Mr. Andreewitch framed the hearing by stating that, due to the court's decisions, he had lost everything and was now living in significantly reduced circumstances with his son.

The judge expressed sympathy for Mr. Andreewitch's situation but criticized his 'shifting position' over the years, stating that he should not have presented a different and entirely conflicting 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 recognized that Mr. Andreewitch had supplied the funds for the property purchase and that some versions of the accounts included a corresponding creditor. However, he believed that if Mr. Andreewitch intended to use this argument, he should have addressed it in his testimony during the previous hearings. Instead, his position at those hearings contradicted the existence of such a loan. "I am rejecting Mr. Andreewitch's appeal against Judge Jefferis's decision and order."

He mentioned that Mr. Andreewitch "technically has one more opportunity to appeal" on a specific point to the Court of Appeal, but "concerning the other appeal grounds, my ruling to deny him permission to appeal marks the conclusion of the matter."