Following the Supreme Court’s judgement in the cases of Sharland v Sharland [2015] and Gohil v Gohil [2015], Jo Edwards, Chair of Resolution said:- “The success of Mrs Sharland and Mrs Gohill today is a clear indicator that anything less than full and frank disclosure of assets in divorce cases will not be tolerated by the Courts, where this has an outcome on the Order that the Court would otherwise have made.
Read more about full financial disclosure in divorce.
This has significant implications for other cases where assets are suspected of having been concealed, and could see many other recently finalised cases being re-opened.”-opened.”
Here are more details about each case:
Sharland v Sharland
The parties were married in 1993 and separated in 2010. They had three children, one of whom had severe autism and would require care from Mrs Sharland throughout his life.
Mr Sharland was an entrepreneur who had a substantial shareholding in a software business that he had developed. The primary dispute centered on the valuation and distribution of that business.
Independent expert valuers assessed the company at a certain figure, based on the understanding that there were no plans for an Initial Public Offering (IPO).
Before the consent order was formally sealed, news broke that the business was actively preparing for an IPO and that the value would be far higher. Mrs. Sharland immediately applied to halt the sealing of the order and resume trial proceedings.
The court held that as both parties owe a duty of full and frank disclosure to the court, then “fraud unravels all” and the agreement between the parties was set aside.
Gohil v Gohil
Ms Gohil (Wife) and Mr Gohil (Husband, a solicitor) divorced in 2002.
In the related consent order, Mrs. Gohil explicitly recorded that she believed her husband had not disclosed his true financial position, but she agreed to settle anyway to bring an end to protracted and stressful litigation.
Later, Mr. Gohil was convicted in criminal court of major money laundering offences, which exposed that he had controlled tens of millions of pounds in concealed assets at the time of the settlement.
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Ms Gohil’s appeal, ruling that her husband’s deliberate fraud invalidated the 2004 agreement.
Make A No Obligation Enquiry Now
To discuss your circumstances with our solicitors, make a no obligation enquiry by calling us on 01494 776696. Alternatively, you can email [email protected] and we will try to get back to you right away.