'Divorce tourism' laws could be scrapped following seven-year legal battle between Scottish aristocrat and his wife after she brought her £10,000-a-month claim to a 'more favourable' English court

• Charles Villiers and wife Emma launched their divorce bid in 2014 in Scotland 
• Scottish aristocrat accuses wife of money grabbing by moving case to England
• Charles, who is related to duchess of Cornwall, will be at Supreme Court today  

Controversial 'divorce tourism' laws could be scrapped following a legal battle between a Scots aristocrat and his wife.

The UK Government has been granted permission to intervene in a row over maintenance involving Charles Villiers and his wife Emma.

Their case was heard at the UK Supreme Court today after Mr Villiers, 56, accused his wife of attempting to up her cash settlement by taking her claim before a judge in England.

English divorce courts are considered more favourable towards women.

But Mr Villiers, who is related to the Duchess of Cornwall, claims the English court had no right to intervene in his Scottish divorce case, launched in 2014.

A legal team acting on behalf of Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland, Secretary of State for Justice, has been granted permission to take part in the case.

Documents seen by the Daily Mail show they fear the case could have 'significant and wide ranging' implications on post-Brexit UK divorce laws, which are currently under EU jurisdiction.

In a written submission, lawyer Deepak Nagpal explains that a ruling in Mr Villiers' favour would put into question laws the government had intended to keep after Leave day.

Mr Villiers said: 'A major dimension of my case has been the piece of outrageous supranational law- making by the EU which interferes in our domestic intra-UK divorce laws. 

It decrees Scotland and England are two independent EU nations for the purposes of intra-UK divorces. This is a deplorable interference by the EU.'

The couple married in 1994 and lived in Milton House, a Georgian mansion in Dunbartonshire.

They separated in 2012 and Mrs Villiers, 60, moved with their daughter Clarissa, 24, to London.

Her husband filed for divorce at Dumbarton Sheriff Court in October 2014. Three months later, Mrs Villiers applied to the English courts for financial maintenance, claiming £10,000 a month.

In 2016, Mrs Justice Parker ruled that the High Court in London could oversee the case because Mrs Villiers was now 'habitually resident' in England.

The judge ordered Mr Villiers to pay £5,500 a month pending finalisation of the divorce, and her legal bills. Racehorse owner Mr Villiers was declared bankrupt in 2013. Although he was discharged from bankruptcy a year later, his family seat was repossessed in 2015.

But Mrs Villiers' lawyers claim her husband has a half share in a £3.5million trust fund.

Mr Villiers insists he has no direct access to the trust fund.

His solicitor Alexander Laing said: 'The case, really, is about which constituent part of the UK should have jurisdiction to deal with Mrs Villiers' claim for maintenance against Mr Villiers. 

'Previously, a UK judge had a power to decide whether a maintenance claim was best heard in his court or would be better heard in another part of the UK.

'The government's concern is that if the Supreme Court rules that the government did not have this power, then by implication the government's power might be limited in other areas too.

'That is important, particularly because the government's expressed intention post-Brexit is to make or change lots of law through this or a similar route.'