Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil have won their Supreme Court battle to have consent orders made during the course of financial remedy proceedings set aside. They will now have the opportunity of the Court looking at all or part of their financial claims against their husbands again.
Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil
Ms Sharland, who reached an agreement with her husband, Charles Sharland, in 2010 made an urgent application to prevent the Court from sealing the agreement when she discovered that he had significantly misrepresented the value of his business, AppSense, whilst giving evidence at a final hearing.
Ms Gohil who had agreed a settlement in 2002 had later discovered extensive dishonesty on the part of her husband following his conviction for money laundering in 2010.
In this landmark battle, the Supreme Court ruled that “fraud unravels all” and that agreements reached in these types of proceedings can be set aside if there has been dishonesty. The only exception to this would be where the Court is satisfied that the fraud or dishonesty would not have influenced a reasonable person to agree.
This case marks a shift in the law. Prior to yesterday’s ruling, a consent order would only have been set aside if the information that was not disclosed would have made a significant difference to the outcome of the case. The Supreme Court decided that the trial judge had been wrong to deprive Ms Sharland of a full and fair hearing by saying that her husband’s deception would not have altered the outcome.
It is clear that dishonesty in the family Courts will not be tolerated and great emphasis has been placed on the duty to fully and frankly disclose your financial circumstances to your spouse and the Court in proceedings such as these. The expectation is that this duty is ongoing throughout the Court of proceedings and negotiations.
Ms Sharland in particular, had the resources to pursue her case up to the highest Court in the land. Many do not have this luxury. Although the £10 million award that she agreed in the first instance may be thought to be more than sufficient to meet hers and her children’s needs, there could be wide reaching implications for those who have been the victims of fraud in cases involving much more modest assets where the value of the concealed asset could make a huge difference to the lives of the parties following divorce.
It is worth noting, however, that people who consider themselves to have been victims of dishonesty or fraud should weigh in the balance the expense, both financial and emotional, of making further applications to the Court. Court proceedings can be costly and lengthy and The Supreme Court made it clear that it is generally in the best interests of all members of a family that matrimonial claims be settled by agreement rather that adversarial battles in Court.
How Nelsons Can Help
Emma Davies
is a specialist Family Law Solicitor at Nelsons.
If you need advice on separation or any other family related matter, please contact Emma and she will be happy to discuss your circumstances in more detail and give you more information about the services that Nelsons family law solicitors can provide.
Emma can be contacted on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.