He is asking the top judges at the Court of Appeal to rule the payout was 'inherently discriminatory' in favor of his wife as 'homemaker' and against him as the main 'breadwinner' in the family.
The redheaded beauty claims that their joint fortune was worth over £9 million, insisting the £3 million her ex had to pay her was simply her fair share.
The publication claims that Paul lived partly on the back of a trust fund set up by his father, Harvey, and on earnings he made through his property development businesses.
But during their divorce case at the Family Court in Manchester last year, he claimed that the 2008 financial crash had caused 'grave business difficulties' for him.
However, Mrs. Justice Parker awarded the mother-of-two a total of £3 million as a final conclusion to the couple's married life.
At the Court of Appeal today, Paul's lawyer Richard Todd QC argued that the sum was based on an over-valuation of the assets available to be split.
"The learned judge made an order which was inherently discriminatory," he argued, according to The Daily Mail. "It discriminated against the husband as breadwinner and in favor of the mother as homemaker."
"All of the liquid assets - and more - were to be paid to the wife," he continued. "In addition to the liquid assets, the husband would have to find another approximately £850,000 to pay to the wife when he had no such resources."
The judge had wrongly taken into account £4.8m worth of assets held in the trust fund as if they belonged to the husband, he told Lady Justice King, Lady Justice Rose and Lord Justice Coulson.
Although he is able to use the income from the fund during his lifetime, it was wrong to treat it as a resource which could be split on divorce, he argued.
It meant the judge had vastly overvalued the liquid assets which could be called upon to provide the wife with a payout, he continued. In the end, she was awarded the £3 million, which was more than the £2,078,000 which Paul claimed they had, reports the publication.
"If the learned judge had correctly calculated the total of the assets available to the parties, it is inconceivable that she would have ordered more than there was in liquid capital to the wife,' said Paul's lawyer.
He also claimed that Mrs. Justice Parker had taken an 'indulgent approach to the wife's evidence' on what her needs were for cash after the divorce.
The judge found she needed £100,000, he said, whereas they had previously lived 'modestly' as a couple, flying economy class and returning from a holiday on New Year's Eve to find cheaper flights.
The Daily Mail reports that Paul earned less than £30,000-a-year, while the cash tied up in his businesses was not 'realistically realizable' without selling their assets, he added.
"In assessing the parties' housing needs, the learned judge preferred the wife's case on her housing need and then made no provision - none at all - for the housing of the husband," he said.
The former couple had 'very similar or identical needs for housing,' but Lauren had claimed she even needed a bedroom for her 65-year-old housekeeper, he said.
And the judge was wrong to find she had no material earning capacity when she was making £40,000-a-year on The Real Housewives of Cheshire, claimed Todd.
However, battling the father of her children in court, Lauren claimed he treated the trust fund like a 'bank account' to use when needed.
"The wife's presentation was that the assets in the case came to about £9,639,627," Lauren's laywere Martin Pointer QC said. "This was at a level quite appropriate to justify the lump sum order made by the judge in her favor."
"The husband overstates the wife's financial position. The truth is that, latterly, she has taken a role in the Real Housewives of Cheshire reality television series, which has brought in some limited money," Lauren's lawyer continued. "It is ephemeral and unlikely to endure. She does not have any acting training or skills and cannot be regarded as having a material earning capacity."
"She attempted to launch a brand of perfume, but it had been loss-making and has closed."
It was also incorrect for Mr Simon to claim he earned less than £30,000, since he was able to use capital gains from his property developments as well as the smaller salary he received, her lawyer argued, according to The Daily Mail.
Pointer said that the £3 million awarded was perfectly fair, given the huge amount of money available to the husband.
The judges adjourned the appeal until later this year.
Source/Photo Credit: The Daily Mail, ITVBe, Twitter
