An American financier is not a 'genius' like Mozart, da Vinci or Einstein so should give half his £150million fortune to his estranged stay-at-home wife, judges ruled today.

Randy Work, 50, a former executive in Texas-based private equity company Lone Star, has been in a £3million 'titanic' legal battle with his ex Mandy Gray, 48, claiming she should only get 39 per cent of his wealth.

In 2015 a High Court judge ruled she did deserve an equal share because she had followed him all over the world - including Japan where he made most of the cash - and was a 'good wife' and 'homemaker' who raised their two children.

But Mr Work appealed and said the judge ignored his 'special contribution' in generating their millions through his 'quality of genius' in business.

Today three judges threw out his case and agreed Mr Work would not have been able to 'amass the wealth' without his estranged wife and said his genius claims should be 'reserved for Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart, Einstein and others like them'.

The couple split after Ms Gray had an affair with their 'personal physiotherapist', the court heard, and she will now receive an estimated £75million.

Legal battle: Tycoon Randy Work (left) has lost his appeal against a divorce ruling which gave his wife, Mandy Gray (right) an equal share of his £150m fortune

The judge had said Mr Work and Ms Gray had been 'two strong and equal partners' over 20 years and had no assets of note when they met.

Mr Work appealed and said he should get a 61 per cent share and his estranged wife 39 per cent.

Today Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, together with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Moylan dismissed Mr. Work's appeal.

The couple both born and brought up in America met and began living together in 1992 and married in 1995. They have two teenage children. They finally split in 2013.

Mr. Work a 49-year-old former top executive with Texas based private equity investment company Lone Star is reported to be worth more than £150 million.

Senior judge Lady Justice King granted the tycoon the right to appeal but said the couple should have been able to sort the divorce out between themselves without spending a fortune in the courts

He accepted his wife should keep some assets she already owns worth £5million but after expenses that would cut her share to under £3million.

Mr. Justice Holman had described the bitter battle for cash as 'unedifying, destructive pugilism.'

In a three hour ruling at the High Court Family Division in London he ruled that Mr. Work could keep the £30m luxury family home in Kensington, West London with it's gym and swimming pool, and also keep an £18m holiday home in Aspen, Colorado, where the family went skiing.

But ruled that Ms. Gray who currently lives in a rented flat, also in Kensington, with her lover and personal physiotherapist 44-year-old Mr. H. should have half the family's assets.

Mr. Work had relied on a Texan post nuptial agreement signed in October 2000 while they were still together.

He told the judge in evidence that 'unfortunately' as she had not accepted his settlement offer of around d £47m in instalments under the agreement and apart from her keeping £5m of her own assets he was not going to pay her a penny more.

The judge disagreed and said if would be 'grossly unfair' if that was true, and said she was entitled to half of the assets built up during the marriage.

He said while he was an 'astute businessman', she was a 'highly intelligent' woman who had given up her job to follow her husband to Tokyo as his career prospered.

He said both were physically and mentally fit and lived the lifestyle of the rich, but not fabulously rich. He had also trained as a triathlete.

But while not super rich the family still stayed in luxury hotels, travelled by private jet or first class, chartered yachts, and had their own staff, said the judge.

The couple who have two children aged 17 and 14, who divide their time between them, had no assets of note when they married in California in 1995.

The judge said it was unbelievable 'that a wife of roughly 20 years married when neither had a bean, and he is now worth at least £150million should be expected to go away with just over £3m.'

He added: 'At the moment I am not sure Mr. Work and I are on the same planet.'

The judge was told that during the marriage Mr. Work was 'the breadwinner' and his wife gave up her job and became 'the homemaker.'

She claims this was a 'substantial sacrifice' on her part. He claims she was keen to do so.

The judge said it was accepted she was a 'good homemaker and good mother' and it was down to her willingness to move to Japan that the husband was able to amass his wealth.

Ms Gray, picture with her lawyer Fiona Shackleton (far right), split with her husband after she had an affair with their 'personal physiotherapist', the court heard, and she was given an equal share of his wealth

He said it was wrong to attach special weight to the hard working husband different to the hard work put in by the wife in running a home and raising children.

He joined Lone Star in 1997 and the family moved to Tokyo and Hong Kong before settling in London in 2008.

In evidence Mr. Work said he had made billions of dollars for Lone Star buying up real estate, including golf courses, after the Japanese economy became stuck in a sharp downturn.

He said although she had been 'a good wife' over 20 years, and a 'good mother' to their children, she was not entitled to any of his money because she had come to court to ask for more than the total sum she would have got under the pre-nuptial agreement.

But she argued that because the family wealth was generated during the marriage she was entitled to half. The judge agreed.

He said while the husband was hardworking and was in the right place at the right time to make his fortune in Japan he was not in the 'genius' mould like Einstein or Mozart.

He ordered them to split their art collection with first choice going to either husband or wife on the toss of a coin.

He said she could keep their horses, and he could keep both the family homes. But that she should have enough money to buy an equivalent home for herself.

The Appeal judges agreed that the term 'genius' was not helpful and said Mr. Work had failed to prove that Mr. Justice Holman's decision was wrong.

Ryan Giggs will claim he's made a 'special contribution' to his estimated £48m fortune as he fights his wife in court - but will judges think his football skills are 'genius' enough?

Ryan and Stacey Giggs are embroiled in a money fight following the breakdown of their relationship

Former Manchester United and Wales footballer Ryan Giggs will argue that he made a 'special contribution' to the creation of wealth during his marriage to estranged wife Stacey, a divorce court judge has been told.

The pair are embroiled in a money fight following the breakdown of their relationship.

A judge overseeing the dispute at hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London has heard that Giggs will call witnesses to support his 'special contribution' claim at any trial.

Lawyers told Mr Justice Cobb that Mrs Giggs would call witnesses in 'reply'.

No-one likely to be called as a witness was identified at a hearing yesterday when Mr Justice Cobb analysed preliminary issues in the case.

The judge will probably be asked to decide how big a share of the marital asset kitty Mrs Giggs should get if agreement is not reached. He said a trial was unlikely to take place for some time.

Mr Justice Cobb said yesterday that the private lives of Giggs, his estranged wife and their two children must be protected as the divorce court battle unfolds.

He said reporters should be able to attend hearings but not members of the public. He also said limits should be placed on what journalists can reveal.

Giggs will argue that he made a 'special contribution' to the creation of wealth during his marriage to estranged wife Stacey

The judge says the public should not be given detail of private financial information and he says the names of the estranged couple's children should not be revealed in reports of the case.

He has outlined his thoughts in a written ruling on how the case should be reported.

'The husband was a professional footballer,' said Mr Justice Cobb. 'He has a number of business interests, and has (had) a role in coaching and management.

'He played football nationally and internationally for many years, and has a high media profile. He is now 43 years of age.

'His marriage to the wife came to an end last year. The husband and wife have two children. This information is well known to the public at large.'

He added: 'This couple have a significant profile in the media, both nationally and internationally.

'That they are divorcing, and that their financial remedy proceedings are being pursued in the English courts, are pieces of information already in the public domain, and the publication of that information cannot legitimately be restrained by order.'

The judge will probably be asked to decide how big a share of the marital asset kitty Mrs Giggs should get if agreement is not reached

But he said it was 'appropriate' for hearings be to be staged in private. He said that would mean journalists could attend but not members of the public.

Meanwhile specialist lawyers said today that millionaires must show that they have a spark of money-making genius to persuade divorce court judges to give them the lion's share of a marital fortune.

Jo Edwards, an expert in family court litigation, says wealthy people must show that they have an X factor to avoid the pot simply being split in two.

She said: 'Whilst big money is necessary to try to mount a special contribution argument, big money is not enough to succeed; you also have to establish that the contributor has that X factor, that spark of genius.'

Amy Harris, from law firm Slater and Gordon, agreed. 'This is something we see regularly with very wealthy couples where one party's earnings far outweigh the other,' she said.

'In court, however, the likelihood of that argument being upheld is rare as the law requires the contribution to be because of something exceptional such as wealth generated as a result of that person's unusually high acumen or drive or alternatively "financial genius" over and above the norm.

'A special contribution argument is unlikely to be successful where someone is simply very good at their job.

'The family court is careful not to discriminate against the non-wealth-creating spouse who may have made a significant contribution to family life in other ways, such as by raising the family's children.'

And John Darnton, from law firm Bircham Dyson Bell, added: 'For some years it has been thought that it would only be possible to argue 'special contributions' in genuinely exceptional cases.

'There were various reasons for this not least the argument that the concept seems inherently discriminatory to a 'stay at home' wife who may have kept a perfect home, raised children almost as a single parent and supported the husband in his career.'