A landmark Supreme Court ruling in favour of two women who say they were misled by their ex-husbands and should get more money in their divorce settlements has received a huge amount of media attention recently.
Varsha Gohil and Alison Sharland – who had proof their husbands had been dishonest about their finances at the time of their divorce proceedings – have won the right to have their cases sent back to court and re-examined by a judge.
Ms Sharland, who accepted £10million in her divorce back in 2010, and Ms Gohil, who received £270,000 in 2002, said their ex-husbands deliberately covered up the extent of their wealth when the original settlements were made.
Seven Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled that the women could seek larger payouts because the men had not fully disclosed the value of their assets at the time.
Lady Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, said the principle that ‘fraud unravels all’ applies as much to divorce as it does to commercial contracts and stated that there is no ‘special magic’ in family cases which means different rules should apply.
A lawyer representing Ms Sharland’s ex-husband, Charles, has warned that his client’s case ‘could open the floodgates to thousands of couples revisiting the agreements they reached’. So will the ruling set a precedent for a multitude of divorce settlements to be revisited? And will it act as a deterrent to those tempted to try and cheat their spouse out of their rightful share of the matrimonial assets?
It’s highly likely there will be more attention given to the full and frank disclosure of assets in future divorce cases. Anything less than this will not be tolerated by the Courts. And those who have previously lied about their true wealth in settled divorce cases may well have sleepless nights ahead as the full implications of the Supreme Court ruling become clear.
Divorce cases can take a heavy toll on all involved with the associated costs – both financial and emotional – an important consideration for anyone tempted to seek permission to set aside an existing settlement. For some, drawing a line under the past and moving on with their lives may well be the sensible answer.
But, where it can be shown that there was non-disclosure, and that it was deliberate, the victim is today in a significantly stronger position than they were before the Supreme Court judgement was made.
