Legal aid for the rich: Children of foreign millionaire given £30,750 for court battle

He was told to pay her almost £5million but, eight years on, he has given her just £266,000 and spent £2million on legal fees trying to hang on to his money.

Even more astonishing is that two of their four children have been given legal aid of £30,750 to defend their interests.

Taxpayers are funding lawyers for the public-school educated children of a millionaire who manages to avoid paying tax and only moved to England ten years ago.

High Court Judge Sir James Holman, hearing the latest stage of this Bleak House-style legal saga, said the affair was "about as bad a case as it is possible to imagine".

The judge added that using legal aid for the children was "exquisitely ironical" as their parents "although resident here for tax purposes and liable for English taxation, manage to avoid paying any tax at all".

In contrast, cuts to the legal aid budget include last month's ruling that families of soldiers killed in action could not have free legal representation at inquests.

The Mubarik v Mubarak saga began in 1998 when Mr Mubarik, 48, an owner of the Dianoor Group of shops which has an outlet on New Bond Street in London, separated from his wife, 47.

In 1999, he was ordered to pay her a lump sum of £4.875million.

He has since gone to court repeatedly to try to avoid paying.

And as the family's interest in the Dianoor jewellers is governed by trusts and companies established in the tax havens of Jersey and Bermuda, it is extremely hard to track Mr Mubarik's money down.

The couple, from India, have four children, aged nine to 22, and for a couple of years the jeweller paid £14,000 a month maintenance.

By May 2005, he was paying only school fees, forcing his wife, who lives in Kensington, West London, to take out loans.

Mr Mubarik, who lives in a £ 2million house in Central London, has claimed he is £2.3million in debt.

But early in the case, he and business colleague Mohammed Wani, 58, were caught presenting false evidence.

The court decided he was worth "numerous millions", with figures as high as £30million mentioned.

Last year, High Court Judge Sir David Bodey said: "The husband and wife have fought the good fight with all their might at considerable expense.

"The overall costs toll is appalling. It could involve litigation in four or five other countries, as well as here.

"The combined total is unclear, but before long it seems set to head off towards the direction of the amount of the lump sum."

Even in 2000, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was "little short of tragic folly seemingly intelligent and civilised people should think that is a responsible way to make use of the family justice system".

By 2004, he was describing the case as "insane".

Aside from monthly maintenance paid in lieu of interest, Mrs Mubarak has managed to squeeze only £266,000 out of her ex-husband through enforcing the sale of property.

He now owes her about £7million, including legal costs and arrears.

The soaring bill for legal aid has risen to £620million a year for civil cases and £1.2billion for criminal.

Primarily, legal aid is supposed to be directed at people on benefits, or pensioners with an income of less than £289 a month.

A spokesman for the Legal Services Commission said a rule change in April meant similar legal aid payouts were unlikely as the capital and income of parents is now included in assessments.