The cases of Sharland and Gohil have made the national news and are notable first because the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, has deliberated and second because the possibility of a spouse re-opening a financial order made in a divorce case was accepted.
It is a general principle in divorce matters that, where possible, the parties should come to a 'clean break' to allow them to move on with their lives following divorce. It is also accepted that the parties are encouraged to agree how their finances should be divided by way of a 'consent order'. Such an order is favourable to having one imposed by a court.
A further general principle of contract law is that if an agreement is based on the fraudulent act of one party, that agreement can be re-opened. What is interesting in these matrimonial cases is that the Court of Appeal held that, despite fraud on the part of one of the parties when agreeing the finances on divorce, fraud should not be sufficient to justify a re-opening of the order if the result would not have been any different.
The Supreme Court roundly disagreed with this view and held that the wives could have their cases re-examined on the basis that their husbands fraudulently failed to disclose all of their assets at the time of the divorce. There is a duty in family proceedings to make 'full and frank disclosure' and if this is not made, it can lead to a review of the financial settlement even many years later.
If you are going to be involved in divorce proceedings and you are unsure as to what you should disclose, you should obtain specialist legal advice.
To discuss this or any matrimonial related issue, contact us.
Internet links: Judgment Judgment