A teacher who started a £30million-a-year fashion empire from his garage is fighting to stop his ex-wife getting £2.7million of his £10million fortune 11 years after they divorced.

Glen Briers, 61, was working full time in a school when he started up his sports and streetwear empire at his family home in 1988 with just £81.

By the time he split with fellow teacher Nicola Briers in 2002, after 18 years of marriage and three children, the business was turning over £1million a year.

Battle: Glen Briers, 61, was working full time when he started up his clothing empire at his family home while married fellow teacher Nicola Briers, who is battling him in the courts for £2.7million

Flagship store: Mr Briers set up Lydenford Ltd, which owns the Lambretta clothing brand, which has shops all over the UK including her in Carnaby Street, central London

His company, Lydenford Ltd, has since grown into a major fashion chain, incorporating well-known brands Lambretta, and turning over up to £30million.

When the couple divorced in 2005, Mr Briers, 61, gave his wife, 58, £150,000 to pay off the mortgage and let her keep their £700,000 family home in the West Midlands, a court was told.

She also got a £10,000-a-year salary, plus child maintenance - but he kept the business.

Mr Briers says they made a 'verbal agreement' at the time that the 'settlement' would represent a clean break between them.

But, after her relationship with her new partner broke down, Mrs Briers went to the divorce courts asking for more and a judge found she deserved a £2.7million slice of his £10million fortune last year.

She claims her ex-husband may have had another child before his relationship with the wife and that he had a young girlfriend, his lawyer Jonathan Cohen QC has said.

Mr Briers is now asking the Court of Appeal to overturn his ex-wife's 'windfall', claiming it was unfair on him and left her 'in a position which is excessively favourable.'

Lady Justice Rafferty heard that Mr and Mrs Briers married in 1984 and have three children who are now grown up.

Whilst some teachers are ridiculed by pupils over their embarrassing fashion sense, Mr Briers, of Willenhall, West Midlands, proved he was more hip than most.

Lydenford Ltd became a roaring success and now comprises a ski & sportswear business as well as 'young fashion' brands, Vision and Lambretta.

The company has outlets nationwide, including flaghship stores in Birmingham, York and London's Carnaby Street.

In 2002 the couple separated and Mr Briers left the matrimonial home. They were divorced in 2005.

He says there was an agreement to make a clean break and that divorce judge, Mark Rogers, was wrong to treat the business as 'an undivided matrimonial asset.'

Divorce: Nicola Briers is believed to have got this home in the West Midlands as part of the initial settlement in 2005

Jonathan Cohen QC, for Mr Briers, told the Appeal Court it was unfair for him to now have to share the fruits of his hard work over a decade after the split from his ex.

'The husband started the business with just £81 of his own money,' said the barrister.

'No family money went into the business at all. The wife's involvement in the business was negligible.

'Her explanation as to why she eventually did make a claim, so many years after the event, was that she had heard that the husband may have had another child before his relationship with the wife; that he had a young girlfriend; her own wages as a teacher had been cut back, and she had parted from her boyfriend, with whom she had been in a relationship since the breakdown of the marriage'.

But Mr Cohen added: 'It is not the husband's role to act as insurer against these events, let alone to do so many years after the separation.

'This was not an undivided asset - the total assets had been divided, with the husband receiving the company and the wife the bulk of the remaining assets.

'The judge has provided the wife with a windfall which has no logical justification.

'It places her in a position which in all the circumstances is excessively favourable.

'From 2005 until 2013 there was no complaint from the wife about the provision that was made or any indication that she considered she had an outstanding claim.

'The husband had dedicated himself to the business since 2002 and created a very different business to that which existed then.

'The wife had made no such contribution,' said Mr Cohen, who added that Mr Briers had offered his ex-wife an extra £562,000 to settle her claim.

Success: His company, Lydenford Ltd, has since grown into a major fashion chain, incorporating well-known brands Lambretta, pictured in Birmingham, and turning over up to £30million

Row: Mr Briers' team told the High Court (pictured) that his wife agreed a deal after they split and should not be given any more cash

Justin Warshaw QC, for Mrs Briers, insisted the payout should be allowed to stand, and that no legal settlement between the former couple had ever been finalised.

'The husband paid her £150,000 and the matrimonial home was transferred, but this was not in satisfaction of a completed agreement...no agreement was ever reached,' he told the court.

The whole process, he claimed, was 'not negotiated... but dictated by the husband.'

'At no time did the wife accept these proposals, which she would not do without full financial disclosure.

'The husband was a dominant personality who sought to prevail in the relationship psychologically and the wife perceived herself as bullied and intimidated.

'Given both the husband and the wife's personalities, she did not relish entering into further dispute,' Mr Warshaw added.

He told the court Mrs Briers deserved her share of the family fortune, due to her 'huge contribution' in caring for the children whilst the company grew.

'The company's origins were deeply embedded in the history of this 18 year marriage,' said the QC.

'The wife had a significant role in its formation and its early incarnation...the simple point was that the business was a matrimonial asset.

'The wife's contribution to the business stopped at separation, but her contribution as primary carer of the children was very significant.

'The wife's role in the home was huge over the many years which followed while the children were still young.'

Mr Briers said he had built up the company single-handedly since the separation.

But Mr Warshaw said that had to be set against the wife's 'substantial contribution to the family in relation to her work in the care of the children.'

'The outcome under which the wife received £2.7m in total was found by the judge to give her 27 per cent of the assets'.

That, said Mr Warshaw, was a 'very significant departure' from the usual 50/50 assets split and was a 'a fair resolution.'

Lady Justice Rafferty, Lord Justice Lindblom and Sir Ernest Ryder reserved their decision on Mr Briers' appeal and will give their ruling at a later date.

Outside court, Mr Briers said: 'It's just very disappointing. The business went from a turnover of about £1m when we split to £30m.

'I paid for everything. I gave her everything that she wanted and that we agreed on. She got a house valued at £700,000.