Photo

A London high court judge has ordered Chris Hohn, founder of one of Britain’s largest and most successful hedge funds, to pay his former wife $531 million to settle their messy public divorce, according to statements made in court on Thursday.

The figure, which represents one of the largest divorce awards known in Britain, demonstrates the immense wealth Mr. Hohn has accumulated at the helm of the Children’s Investment Fund, known as TCI, the approximately $12 billion hedge fund he founded in 2004.

Much of that wealth has gone into the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, created by the couple, which now has $4.6 billion and is one of Britain’s largest charities. Jamie Cooper-Hohn, his former wife, served as its chief executive until 2012.

The settlement figure underscores London’s reputation as the divorce capital of the world for the ultrawealthy. Unlike some other countries that set timetables and limit awards, a set of guiding principles here is more open to judicial interpretation, lawyers say. “Not only do you have the opportunity to get more money, but you can get it for longer,” said Julian Bremner, a partner with the law firm Rayden Solicitors.

The couple’s ties to the foundation further complicated an already complex divorce after a 17-year marriage.

Ms. Cooper-Hohn’s lawyer argued during the trial that she was entitled to 50 percent of their assets, estimated at one point to be $1.3 billion. Mr. Hohn countered that she should get 25 percent of a smaller figure, because of the “special contribution” he made to the creation of the wealth.

It is not clear what proportion she received, because the judge did not disclose her order. It will be released in December, and British divorce lawyers are anxiously waiting to see the proportion awarded and the judge’s reasoning for her ruling.

On Thursday, the two appeared in court to hash out a number of contentious issues, including whether he paid her rent on time (his lawyers say yes; her lawyers say no); why a $10 million payment to her had not been made (his lawyers said it was ready; her lawyers said they had been told he did not have the onshore resources); and the fallout from bribery accusations Mr. Hohn made against her related to the foundation, Ms. Cooper-Hohn’s lawyers said in court.

Both Mr. Hohn and Ms. Cooper-Hohn are trustees of the foundation. The divorce proceedings have complicated the operations of the foundation, said one person briefed on the situation. As part of the negotiations, Ms. Cooper-Hohn offered to lower her settlement amount in exchange for his supporting a proposal for a division of the foundation, whose operations had been adversely affected by their inability to work together, according to the person briefed on the situation. He asserted to the trustees that it was a bribe and that her lawyers knew about it.

The trustees hired a pair of expensive and prominent lawyers to investigate. They found no substance to the bribery claim, the person said.

Mr. Hohn could not be reached for comment.

Ms. Cooper-Hohn will get $493.3 million in cash, with the remainder coming from a pension plan. She is to be paid $10 million immediately and the rest after the two sides work out an indemnity agreement.

Like many divorce trials, the Hohns’ laid bare some of the intimate details of the couple’s lives.

In July, Ms. Cooper-Hohn testified in court that the two met at Harvard. “I asked him what he wanted to do. He said, ‘I don’t mind as long as I make a lot of money,’ ” she testified. At first she refused to go out with him. She said she later realized that they had similar values. “He talked about when he was working in the Philippines and how moved he was by the poverty,” she recalled.

Mr. Hohn, the son of a Jamaican car mechanic who immigrated to England, disputed part of that account, noting that “the reason she did go out with me was that I said to her, ‘If I made a lot of money I would actually use it philanthropically,’ and it was something which made a deep impact on me.”

Mr. Hohn stayed true to his word. He has given away more than $1.2 billion to the foundation, on the back of the fund’s stellar returns — 47 percent last year — and he was knighted this summer for his contributions to philanthropy.

His moneymaking prowess was also a topic on the stand, as his lawyers sought to prove that he had made a “special contribution” to the marriage. That point was crucial. While one landmark case in Britain argues assets should be divided equitably, a judge in a case in 2006 contended that one-third of the assets should be adequate in cases where extreme wealth had been created by the other party.

Mr. Hohn’s lawyers made a similar case, which Mr. Hohn supported on the witness stand.

“Over the long term I am an incredible moneymaker,” he said. “I’m not the only one, there’s a handful,” he added. “There are about five to 10 investors in the world who have done as well as me out of tens of thousands.”

But Mr. Hohn said that money was not important to him, emphasizing that he led a simple life (which the judge referred to as his “Swatch” watch lifestyle).

The couple separated in December 2012 and divorced in 2013. They have four children, including triplets.

Ms. Cooper-Hohn’s lawyer requested that the judge release the settlement documents after the children were out of school, and ideally after they were out of the country for the holidays.

Though most divorce proceedings are private, Ms. Cooper-Hohn’s award stands out in a city that some have called a billionaire’s playground. In 2011, the late Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky paid more than £200 million to his ex-wife in what was believed to be the largest British divorce settlement.

And though London may be considered the divorce capital of the world, plenty of financiers are caught up in messy divorces in the United States. Kenneth G. Griffin, the founder of hedge fund Citadel, is locked in an ugly divorce with Anne Dias Griffin, and released a copy of their prenuptial agreement as the two sparred publicly. In New York, Sage Kelly, a Wall Street banker, has attracted attention for a divorce that has included salacious accusations about drug use and infidelity.

Either party in the Hohns’ case can appeal, though Mr. Hohn’s lawyers said he would not unless she did. Her lawyer argued that she would need time to decide whether she would. Each response in court elicited audible sounds of exasperation from the other side in court.