A wealthy Jersey businesswoman has failed in her attempt to claim £11 million in compensation after a worldwide freezing order targeted a string of luxury assets during a bitter divorce battle.

The Royal Court heard the injunction covered assets worth up to £5 million – including luxury homes, horses, jewellery and high-end cars such as Lamborghinis, Aston Martins and a Porsche Boxster Spyder.

Although the court found the wrong legal process had been used to strike out her claim, judges ruled she was still not entitled to compensation arising from the injunction obtained by her former husband during the long-running matrimonial litigation.

The wife, previously described by the court as “by far the wealthier of the spouses”, had originally been ordered to transfer assets worth £7.35 million to her former husband in 2019.

This, alongside his own property, was intended to give him 37% of the assessed value of the joint matrimonial assets.

But in 2021, the husband obtained a worldwide freezing injunction, alleging she had failed to make full disclosure of her assets during the divorce proceedings.

The order froze assets up to £5 million and covered luxury properties, jewellery and high-end cars – including Lamborghinis, Aston Martins and a Porsche Boxster Spyder.

The husband ultimately failed in his attempts to overturn the original financial settlement, with both the Court of Appeal and Privy Council refusing to disturb the earlier ruling.

The former wife then sought damages under the standard undertaking given when injunctions are granted – effectively a promise to compensate the other side if the order later proves unjustified.

She claimed the injunction had caused losses of around £11 million, alleging businesses had “barely” survived, salaries had been paid late, and companies had closed or downsized.

The Royal Court found that there had been a previous ruling to strike out the wife’s claim using ordinary civil pleading rules, because an undertaking in damages is not a standard legal claim between two parties.

However, despite succeeding on that procedural point, she lost on the substance of the case.

The court pointed to earlier judgments which had already identified serious disclosure failures and concerns over her credibility.

In one earlier ruling, the Royal Court described her as “not a reliable witness” who “seldom gave a direct answer to the questions put to her”.

The judges also noted that throughout the litigation, the wife had repeatedly claimed to possess assets worth more than £10 million while the injunction was in force.

The court found that this therefore undermined her argument that the injunction had caused the financial losses she alleged.

“She is the author of her own misfortune by reason of her misconduct during the ancillary relief proceedings and she brought the injunction upon herself,” the judgment said.

As a result, the court refused to order any inquiry into damages, effectively ending her compensation bid.

The full judgment can be found online.