A businesswoman worth more than £250million should hand her estranged husband more than £6.5million, in addition to £60,000-a-year to meet his "income needs," a judge ruled.
Since Louise Backstrom and Martin Wennberg's six-year marriage broke down, the couple have been embroiled in a dispute over money in a London private family court.
Mr Wennberg, aged 39, wanted a financial package worth more than £40m and gave his arguments in the court.
But Deputy High Court judge Leslie Samuels has ruled against him and instead said Ms Backstrom, 33, should maintain her £6.5m "housing fund" offer, in accordance with the terms of a pre-marital agreement.
Judge Samuels, who oversees hearings in the Family Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, outlined his conclusions in a written judgment and named the people involved today.
He said: "On any view the standard of living enjoyed by this family before the breakdown of the marriage was extremely high.
"The parties enjoyed the provision of high value London properties, staff, expensive holidays, limitless travel options and, overall, the best that money can provide."
But in addition to the £6.5m, Mr Wennberg should be entitled to around £60,000-a year from Ms Backstrom over the next six years to meet his "income needs".
The judge was told Ms Backstrom and Mr Wennberg are Swedish but have lived in England for several years.
Ms Backstrom was chairman of the Biltema Foundation and a minority shareholder in Birgma Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited, a family business started and controlled by her grandfather, the judge was told.
He concluded Ms Backstrom had assets of around £250m - and Mr Wennberg assets of £2m.
"The parties met in Stockholm and formed a relationship in March 2012," the judge said.
"When they met, the wife was a student and the husband was working selling luxury watches."
He said they started living together in 2014, married in 2015 and separated in 2021.
The judge said Mr Wennberg "filed no evidence" and did not provide "any disclosure of his financial position".
He said Mr Wennberg was in breach of orders requiring him to provide financial information.
Detail of the litigation emerged in March, when Ms Backstrom said Mr Wennberg had breached court orders made during the dispute and was in contempt.
She asked another judge to impose a jail sentence.
Mr Justice Peel, who considered Ms Backstrom's contempt complaint at a public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London, ruled Mr Wennberg had breached earlier orders made by judges.
A judge is due to make decisions about sentencing later this year.
