Katie Price’s divorce from Lee Andrews hits major snag after £37,000,000 claim

Katie Price may have finally called time on her chaotic marriage to Lee Andrews, but getting out of it could prove considerably more complicated than getting into it.

The former glamour model, 48, confirmed this week that her whirlwind relationship with Andrews is over after months of increasingly bizarre claims surrounding her husband, who is currently behind bars in Dubai.

Andrews appears to agree that there is little left to save, declaring in a voice note from prison played on Good Morning Britain that ‘divorce is probably for the best’.

Unfortunately for the estranged couple, wanting a divorce and actually being able to get one are two different things.

Family law experts have told Metro that the pair could be forced to remain husband and wife for several more months, while the mystery surrounding Andrews’ alleged £37million fortune could make untangling their finances considerably more complicated.

‘Discovering that your new husband may be worth £2 rather than the £37m he claimed is one thing. The bigger question for Katie is what happens to the money when this extraordinary eight-month marriage ends,’ family law expert Susie Barter told Metro.

Katie revealed on Good Morning Britain that one of the final straws in their relationship came when she investigated a cryptocurrency account Andrews had allegedly claimed contained £37m.

She said she found just £2.20.

Andrews has disputed her account, insisting Katie had looked at the wrong account because she is not ‘tech-savvy’ and maintaining that he really is a multimillionaire.

But before the estranged couple can begin hashing out exactly who has what, Katie could face a lengthy wait to formally end the marriage.

‘Under English law, divorce proceedings cannot normally be started until the parties have been married for at least 12 months, so Katie may have to wait before she can formally begin the process,’ Barter explained.

‘In the meantime, there is nothing to stop her taking advice and getting her financial affairs in order.’

Daniel Sugaré, a solicitor at Sugaré & Co, similarly explained that in England and Wales a divorce application cannot be made during the first year of marriage.

That doesn’t mean the couple can do nothing until their anniversary, however. They could begin negotiating their financial separation and voluntarily exchange financial information, while judicial separation is also an option during the first year — although it would not legally end the marriage.

And even once Katie becomes eligible to apply, she won’t become a divorcée overnight.

Sugaré explained that there is ordinarily a minimum 20-week wait before a conditional order can be obtained, followed by a further minimum period of 43 days before a final order.

That means Katie will almost certainly still be legally Mrs Andrews at Christmas, with the couple unable to even begin divorce proceedings until their first wedding anniversary next year.

Speaking about why she had finally walked away, Katie said on GMB: ‘I feel like he scammed my heart and stole my trust that I had, and me defending a man constantly because he made me believe that, “Kate, come on, you know I’m not like this.”’

Price said she still loved Andrews, but had reached the point where she could no longer trust him after discovering what she described as repeated discrepancies between things he had told her and what she subsequently found herself.

The crypto account is only the latest extraordinary financial claim to follow Andrews throughout their relationship.

He previously claimed to have bought a £36m home for the couple in cash and even said he had submitted a bid to buy Chelsea Football Club.

Katie has also said a ring Andrews told her was worth £72,000 was actually valued at around £5,000, an anecdote she shared during her GMB appearance.

However, she has stressed that she did not end the marriage because she discovered he might not possess the vast fortune he claimed. Instead, she said the alleged lies ultimately became too much.

Katie has also insisted Andrews never conned her out of her own money, saying he paid for dates, jewellery, and flights during their relationship.

But the question of whether his reported millions actually exist could now become rather more important than either of them anticipated.

Barter explained that both sides would generally be required to disclose their finances, meaning the question of whether Andrews really has millions could finally be put to the test.

‘If financial proceedings follow, both parties would generally be expected to provide full and frank disclosure of their financial position,’ she said.

‘If Lee has claimed to be worth £37m, the court would not simply take that figure at face value. It would look at the evidence and require disclosure of assets, income, liabilities and other relevant financial interests.

‘Deliberately hiding assets or providing misleading information can have serious consequences.’

Sugaré explained that this disclosure would ordinarily be made through a Form E, which can cover everything from property and bank accounts to investments, businesses, pensions, debts and relevant assets held overseas.

In other words, Andrews saying he has £37m would not make it so in the eyes of the court.

‘If one spouse asserted publicly that they were worth around £37 million, that figure would need to be substantiated,’ Sugaré told Metro.

‘The court would be interested in what assets actually exist, who owns them and what they are worth, not simply the headline figure someone has attached to their wealth.’

Where businesses, property or investments are involved, documents including bank statements, company accounts, valuations, tax records and evidence of ownership could be examined, while further disclosure can be ordered if questions remain.

Sugaré added that deliberately failing to disclose assets can have ‘very serious consequences’, including the possibility of a financial order later being set aside.

Katie has, of course, had a complicated financial history of her own.

She was once estimated to have amassed a £40m fortune during the height of her modelling and television career, before being declared bankrupt in 2019 and again in 2024.

She has since rebuilt her career through ventures including OnlyFans, live shows and television projects.

Andrews, meanwhile, remains in Dubai’s Al Awir prison over what he has described as a civil matter and insists he has not been convicted of a crime.

He has claimed he expects to be released soon.

His incarceration has already played a significant part in the increasingly strange final months of the couple’s relationship, with Katie previously left publicly questioning where her husband was as conflicting explanations emerged about his whereabouts.

And being imprisoned thousands of miles away could present practical problems if and when divorce proceedings get underway.

‘If Lee is incarcerated overseas, that could create practical complications and potentially make the divorce process more difficult to progress, particularly when it comes to communication and serving documents,’ Barter explained.

Sugaré stressed, however, that imprisonment abroad would not prevent an English divorce from going ahead. The bigger issue would be ensuring the paperwork is properly served on Andrews while he is incarcerated in another country, potentially adding further steps to the process.

Crucially, Andrews would not have a veto over the divorce if Katie ultimately decides to proceed.

Sugaré explained that a spouse cannot simply defend divorce proceedings because they do not accept that the marriage is over, with challenges essentially restricted to legal questions such as the validity of the marriage or whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction.

The brevity of Katie and Andrews’ marriage could also prove significant when it comes to their money.

‘The fact that this has been a relatively short marriage will also be relevant when looking at any financial claims,’ Barter explained.

‘It does not automatically prevent either party from making a claim, but the court will consider the circumstances of the marriage, the parties’ financial positions and what would be fair in the circumstances.’

Sugaré similarly explained that there is no rule wiping out financial claims simply because a marriage lasted only a matter of months.

In a short marriage, however, there can be greater focus on what each person owned beforehand, what wealth was actually generated during the marriage and how far the couple combined their finances.

That makes Katie and Andrews’ situation markedly different from a couple ending a 20-year marriage after building their wealth together, although each party’s financial needs would still be relevant.

In a voice note played on Good Morning Britain following Katie’s appearance, Lee denied having ‘pulled the wool over anyone’s eyes’ and claimed he felt his wife had profited from their relationship.

‘I do feel that that happened to me and it looks like there’s profit to be made on her side,’ he said, while maintaining that his imprisonment relates to a civil matter.

He also accused Katie of having ‘sold him out’.

For now, both lawyers said there are steps Katie could take before she becomes eligible to apply for a divorce.

Barter said: ‘For Katie, the sensible step now would be to take specialist legal advice, keep her own finances properly documented and start establishing as much as possible about the true extent of Lee’s financial position.

‘There is no need to wait 12 months before preparing for what could become a complicated financial dispute.’

Sugaré similarly said it would be sensible to establish a ‘clear financial snapshot’ now, retaining documents such as bank and investment statements, tax returns and company information, as well as evidence of what assets existed before the marriage.