Tatiana Akhmedov was given a 41.5% share of Farkhad Akhmedov's (pictured) £1billion-plus fortune following a London divorce court money fight

A billionaire oligarch ordered to hand his ex-wife £453million in Britain's biggest divorce case was a victim of 'manifestly unjust' treatment by courts, lawyers claimed today.

Gas and oil tycoon Farkhad Akhmedov, 61, a close friend of Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich, was told to hand ex-wife Tatiana Akhmedova 41.5 per cent of his 'staggering' wealth by a High Court judge in London in December 2016.

During their marriage the couple enjoyed an incredibly lavish lifestyle, with a £39million mansion in Surrey as their family home, as well as a £27.8million holiday home.

Mr Akhmedov, who is worth £900million, was included in the recent 'Putin list', which was released by the US Treasury Department and gives the names of 210 prominent Russians with close ties to the Kremlin.

He owns a £90million art collection and has a private jet valued at around £42m and helicopter.

In 2014, he bought a £300million 377ft super-yacht called Luna from Mr Abramovich for an eye-watering £300million. The vessel has nine cabins and enough room for 18 guests and was built especially for Mr Abramovich.

But after the couple - who have two children together - split following more than 20 years of marriage, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave ordered him to give up a huge chunk of his fortune.

The ruling, which was delivered at the end of 2016, was one of the biggest awards made by a UK court.

But lawyers today argued that the hearing was unfair, claiming that 'the family court's attitude was to espouse without restraint' his ex wife's case.

For her part, Ms Akhmedova, 41, says that, despite the court's order, she has to date received almost 'nothing' from her ex.

Hodge Malek QC, for his wife, told the Court of Appeal today that she was just 17 when she met her ex, and 21 and pregnant when they married in 1993 and moved to England.

He said: 'The husband has not paid a penny. Despite being awarded in aggregate £453,576,152 before interest and costs (she) has to date received nothing from (him) save for some de minimis assets in the UK.'

Tatiana Akhmedova (pictured left, with her lawyer Fiona Shackleton outside the High Court on Wednesday) was given a 41.5 per cent share of Farkhad Akhmedov's £1billion-plus fortune following a London divorce court battle

Mr Akhmedov, who owns a private jet and helicopter and a £90m art collection, also bought a £300m super-yacht (pictured) from Chelsea owner Mr Abramovich in 2014

The business mogul also has a has a private jet valued at around £42m (pictured)

'Mr Akhmedov is flagrantly in contempt of court.' Mr Akhmedov had nothing like the wealth now enjoyed by him - substantively their wealth was made during the marriage.'

He told Sir James Munby, Lord Justice Lewison and Lady Justice King that Mr Akhmedov - who started out selling sable furs - made his fortune when he sold shares in Russian company, ZAO Northgas, in 2012 'for a staggering $1.375 billion.'

'The marriage broke down in 2013 and finally ended in 2014,' he said, claiming that, since then, the husband had 'embarked on a deliberate campaign of trying to defeat the wife's claims by any means possible - save on the merits.'

Mr Malek claimed that the husband had shifted almost all of his wealth out of the UK to offshore funds and 'began to strip cash out' to stop his wife getting it as the divorce proceedings progressed.

He said his wife 'to date has received nothing from the husband save for some de minimis assets in the UK,' which include 'some sporting guns and a valuable motor car,' whilst she has also 'arrested' his helicopter and plane.

As part of the divorce ruling, Mr Justice Haddon Cave 'set aside' a transfer of assets, including Mr Akhmedov's £90m art collection, to a fund in Liechtenstein.

Farkhad Akhmedov owns a luxurious mansion with a large pool in St Jean Cap Ferat, France (pictured)

In 2014, he bought a £300million 377ft super-yacht called Luna (pictured) from Mr Abramovich

One of the husband's lawyers, solicitor Anthony Kerman, was summonsed as part of that process and compelled to divulge to the court private information relating to his client's finances which would normally be privileged and secret.

That move is now being attacked as unfair, with the husband seeking to join the challenge, claiming his case was 'affected' negatively by the controversial move.

Philip Shepherd QC, for Mr Kerman, argued that forcing him to reveal Mr Akhmedov's private affairs 'cannot be right' adding: 'All proper judicial restraint seems to have been abandoned.'

He added: 'The family court's attitude at the hearings of 15 and 16 December 2016 was to espouse without restraint the cause being made by Ms Akhmedova.

'A lawyer witness should not be ambushed into giving evidence, which may reveal legal professional privilege or other matters that it is his duty to keep confidential.

'Just as the law does not deprive a fugitive from justice from his ordinary civil rights generally, nor should it do so in relation to his rights to defend legal professional privilege.

Mr Akhmedov, who is worth £900million, also owns a £90million art collection and has a private jet and helicopter

Court of Appeal judges were today considering legal issues in the case at a follow-up hearing in London

'Production of client documents by a lawyer will inevitably affect the client.'

The barrister added that the husband has a legitimate ground of challenge to Mr Justice Haddon Cave's rulings, saying: 'The various respondents and other such persons who may be affected by the orders against Mr Kerman should now be given the opportunity to join these appeal proceedings.'

Mr Shepherd added: 'The procedures allowed by the family court in this case were manifestly unjust.'

He said that Mr Kerman is no longer instructed by Mr Akhmedov and denied the wife's accusation that he is the husband's 'general man of business,' rather than simply a lawyer.

Mr Malek, however, told the court that Mr Kerman's appeal is 'defective' and should be regarded as being 'of limited significance' as it relates largely to matters which have now 'been overtaken by events.'

The Appeal Court hearing continues.