Businessman wins ‘custody’ of classic cars after divorce battle

A BUSINESSMAN has won a legal tussle with his estranged wife over the ownership of a £20 million collection of classic cars.

Nichola Joy claimed that Clive Joy-Morancho’s collection of “vintage and other collectable motor cars” should be transferred to her as part of a divorce payout after their five-year marriage broke down.

She said the collection of around 35 vehicles was owned by a company with which he had links.

Following a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London, a judge ruled in Mr Joy-Morancho’s favour and dismissed Ms Joy’s claim for the transfer of cars to her.

Sir Peter Singer analysed the arguments earlier this year and published his ruling yesterday.

The couple had lived on the Caribbean island of Be- quia and in a chateau in France, the court heard. Ms Joy, 48, had started divorce proceedings after making domestic violence allegations, said the judge. Sir Peter said the “substance” of the couple’s wealth derived from Mr Joy-Moran- cho’s “business activities”.

He said there was “extreme” disagreement over how much Ms Joy should get as a result of the marriage breakdown. Ms Joy argued that there was £54 million in the pot and wanted a lump sum of £27 million. Mr JoyMorancho said he was facing “financial ruin” and argued that Ms Joy should get “nominal” maintenance only.

The judge said he would have to decide whether Mr Joy-Morancho’s “plight” was “genuine or a contrived facade” — and indicated that he would rule on Ms Joy’s cash claims at a later date.

The car collection included a Ferrari, bought for about £5.5 million three years ago, and an Alfa Romeo. The judge added that it included two “particularly rare and exceptional vehicles” – a McLaren F1 and a McLaren P1.

The judge had made an order in 2014 “restraining” Mr Joy-Morancho from “disposing of or dealing with” a 1928 Bentley racer he had bought for nearly £400,000.

Mr Joy-Morancho, 56, had said the Bentley was “personally owned” and the judge indicated that it was not part of the car collection at the centre of the dispute.