Multi-millionaire divorce barrister, 55, is ordered to hand her violent ex-husband £625,000 so he can pay off his debts because he was unemployed throughout their 11-year marriage

• Sorour Bassiri-Dezfouli said ex, Kianoosh Azarmi-Movafagh deserved 'nothing'
• As a London barrister and property owner, she had been the breadwinner 
• During their relationship, she had twice been subjected to domestic abuse 
• But High Court judge ordered her to hand him £625,000 to finalise divorce 

A multi-millionaire divorce lawyer was today ordered to hand her violent ex-husband £625,000 after losing a 'self-destructive' family court battle following their breakup.

Sorour Bassiri-Dezfouli, 55, claimed her ex, Kianoosh Azarmi-Movafagh, 58, deserved 'nothing whatsoever' when they divorced following an 11-year marriage.

As a London barrister and property owner, she had been the breadwinner, while her husband had been 'unemployed, having not worked independently throughout the marriage.'

During their relationship, she had twice been subjected to domestic abuse, with a family court judge finding as a fact that her ex had been 'violent' towards her.

At the High Court, she was ordered to hand him £625,000 to finalise their divorce, but was also allowed a £200,000 charge over his home, to cash in when he died or remarried.

But Mr Azarmi-Movafagh appealed and today saw the charge wiped out by Court of Appeal judges in London.

Ms Bassiri-Dezfouli had asked the court to also slash the sum she has to pay to £425,000, but three senior judges did not do so, meaning she has to stump up the full £625,000 to pay off his debts and allow him to buy a home.

Giving judgment, Lady Justice King said the findings of domestic abuse did not justify Mr Azarmi-Movafagh being tied to his ex-wife, potentially for life, by the charge over his home.

She said what should have been a straightforward divorce had been marked by what a High Court judge in 2019 called 'extreme positions and a degree of bitterness' betwen the former couple.

'The judge if anything understated the position - the degree of acrimony on both sides has been such that the parties embarked on a course of litigation which became an exercise in self-destruction,' she said.

'As a consequence, the costs have become so disproportionate relative to the assets that it is now hard to achieve an outcome in this uncomplicated needs case which will not leave each of the parties profoundly discontented.'

The court heard Bassiri-Dezfouli, a London barrister whose specialisms include matrimonial money fights, and her ex met in March 2006 and married in an Islamic ceremony in 2006 and a civil marriage ceremony in March 2007.

They lived together in a £727,000 home in upmarket Surbiton, south west London, until separating in December 2017.

'The marriage ended in December 2017 following two incidents of violence on the husband's part,' said the appeal judge.

'The husband was subsequently acquitted in criminal proceedings, but a finding was made on the balance of probabilities at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing...that he had been violent to the wife.'

The split led to a bitter court battle between the 'financially stronger' wife, who makes the bulk of her earnings through a £2.3m property portfolio, and the husband, who is dependent on universal credit payments.

At an initial divorce hearing in 2019, she was ordered by Judge Richard Robinson to pay him a total of £625,000, made up of £400,000 for a house, £25,000 for expenses and a car, and £200,000 towards his legal costs of the divorce.

The pair had already by then run up a combined court bill of £390,000, the court heard.

But she challenged that and, in November 2019, Mrs Justice Judd altered the order to give Mrs Bassiri-Dezfouli a £200,000 charge over the property which her husband would buy.

That could be cashed in if he died or started living with a new partner.

Appealing against the grant of the charge over his home in May, Mr Azarmi-Movafagh's lawyers argued that neither party had wanted to be tied to the other.

It produced a 'manifestly unjust' outcome to the case and appeared to have been partly justified by the judge's reference to the findings of domestic abuse against him.

For the wife, barrister Sarah Phipps also appealed, arguing that as well as removing the charge over the husband's house, the amount Mrs Bassiri-Dezfouli has to pay should be cut by £200,000 as she should not have to pay his legal debts.

Giving judgment today, Lady Justice King - sitting with Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Newey - allowed the husband's appeal and removed the £200,000 charge against the home he will buy with his payout.

'Whilst understanding entirely the desire of Mrs Justice Judd to achieve a result which she believed to represent a fairer outcome than that reached by Judge Robinson, in my view the order made by Judge Robinson, which allows the parties to achieve a clean break, cannot be regarded as being outside his wide discretion such that it was appropriate for his order to be altered on appeal.

'Further, Mrs Justice Judd was in error in making an order placing a charge on the husband's property without having heard submissions on the point and in circumstances where neither party sought such an outcome.

'I note that Mrs Justice Judd said that it was likely that she would make an order not wanted by either party, but that does not mean that such an order can be made without the parties having the opportunity to make submissions in respect of the same.

'For the reasons set out in this judgment, the findings of domestic abuse made against the husband do not justify making what would otherwise be an inappropriate order.

'It follows that, in my judgment, the appeal against the judge's order imposing a charge on the property the husband hopes to buy will, if my lords agree, be allowed.'

All three judges agreed and Mr Azarmi-Movafagh's appeal against the charge on his home was allowed.