The 61-year-old tycoon, who “lost everything” including £2.2m at his Chelsea home in a multi-million pound legal battle with his ex-partner, is “so poor he’s had to move with his son.”

A tycoon who “lost everything” in a seven-year legal battle with his ex-partner claims he is now so poor he has had to move in with his son.

Peter Andreewitch has spent the better part of a decade battling Magali Mourtreuil, 50, for ownership of his £2.2m Chelsea family home and a portfolio of international properties.

The 61-year-old had transferred all ownership shares in the company that owned the properties to Ms Moutreuil to prevent people from discovering his true wealth and to “protect” himself from financial risk.

But when the couple, who raised five children together during their 19-year relationship, split in 2017, he insisted the houses belonged to him, sparking a bitter High Court battle.

Over the past four years, Andreewitch has ended up on the losing side of the argument, with a series of judges ruling against him and the mogul even receiving a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court.

Now a High Court judge has criticized him for his “shifty” arguments and rejected his attempts to overturn the decision to reject his bid for ownership of the properties.

Peter Andreewitch has claimed he faces being “destitute” after losing his family’s multimillion-dollar fortune to his ex in a bitter “winner-takes-all” legal battle. Pictured: Andreewitch outside the High Court in London in November 2023

Ms Moutreuil won during the first trial in 2020 and has since been taken back to court by Mr Andreewitch, who has appealed the decisions. Pictured: Ms Moutreuil outside the High Court in London in November 2023

The ruling he was trying to appeal was made last year by Judge Michael Jefferis, who said his attempts to regain ownership of the properties were an “abuse of process”.

Andreewitch claimed the decision would “finish” him, but decided to prolong the court battle by appealing, despite warnings that doing so could wipe out the family fortune.

At a hearing in June 2023, the court heard that the properties had been owned by Mr Andreewitch through a company, Pier Investment Company Ltd, but that more than 20 years ago he transferred “the entire shares of the ‘company’ to his then new girlfriend. Mme Moutreuil.

He made the move in an attempt to “protect himself” from “future exposure” to creditors and “conceal the existence” of his wealth, he had told a judge at an earlier hearing.

However, he insisted he had never wanted Ms Moutreuil to be the legal owner of his London home, which Mr. Andreewitch bought in 1993, and a number of other properties in Germany.

After their relationship broke down in 2017, but while they still lived together in the house with their children, Andreewitch began insisting to Ms Moutreuil that she had no rights or interest in the property, the court heard.

However, he refused to back down under pressure from his wealthy ex-partner, who the court previously heard also owns several “UK properties”.

The court heard that in 2020, Mr Andreewitch was given a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court after being sued by his ex for spending some of the family fortune in breach of freezing orders.

Later that year, he lost the first fight between the former lovers over the ownership of the properties when a judge ruled that they were effectively owned by Ms Moutreuil.

The couple have been in a savage court war over a £2.2m Grade II listed house (pictured) in Christchurch Street, Chelsea, and a portfolio of international properties.

Andreewitch insisted he had never wanted Ms Moutreuil to be the legal owner of his London home and a number of other properties in Germany. Pictured: Andreewitch outside the High Court in London in November 2023

His application to appeal against the sentence was later rejected, but Andreewitch continued to fight, launching a new bid for the property, which was rejected as an “abuse of process” by Judge Jefferis of the High Court last year

Last month, Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Thompsell rejected another challenge by Mr Andreewitch, who had sought to appeal Mr Justice Jefferis’ ruling.

As well as claiming he owned the properties, Mr Andreewitch had been arguing the company owed him money, having paid cash to finance the purchase of the Chelsea home.

But the judge said that while it was “consensus that he had provided the company in 1993 with £264,000 which was used to buy the family home”, he could not now claim that he was owed the money because that contradicted the arguments he had. carried out during the start-up process.

“In his opening address, Mr Andreewitch sought to place this hearing in the context that, as a result of the court rulings, he had lost everything and now lives with his son in extremely reduced circumstances,” he said.

“He clearly felt he had been treated unfairly. I have every sympathy for Mr Andreewitch’s circumstances.

But he went on to criticize “Mr Andreewitch’s changing position” in his arguments over the years, adding that he “should not have given a different and totally inconsistent explanation during the contempt proceedings”.

“It is quite clear that Judge Jefferis made his decision primarily in relation to the issue of abuse of process,” he continued.

“I was aware that Mr Andreewitch had provided the money to buy the property and that there was a matching creditor recorded in at least some versions of the accounts, but I considered that if Mr Andreewitch had wished to rely on this point he should have dealt with the point of his evidence during the previous hearings, while, in fact, his case in those hearings was inconsistent with the existence of this loan.

“I am both dismissing Mr. Andreewitch’s appeal against Judge Jefferis’ decision and order.”

He said Mr Andreewitch “technically has another right of appeal” on one ground to the Court of Appeal, but “in terms of the other grounds of appeal, my decision to deny him the leave to appeal is the end of the road.”