Fill in the following details to e-mail
To
Cc
Subject
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> <br /> <br /><br /> Financial settlements between spouses reopened for non-disclosure of assets<br /><br /> - (14 Oct 2015)<br /><br /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v gohil</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE"><strong>The United Kingdom Supreme Court considered the effects of material non-disclosure at financial settlement between husband and wife on divorce in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0074-judgment.pdf ">Sharland v Sharland</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0200-judgment.pdf ">Gohil v Gohil</a>. In Sharland, Mr. Sharland had been dishonest about an upcoming Initial Public Offering of his software business AppSense Holdings, which valued the business much higher than it had been at settlement. The Court ruled, unanimously, that in such a case of fraud, the judge ruling on the consent order between the former spouses would have arrived at a significantly different order.<BR><BR> In Gohil, the Supreme Court overturned an order of the Court of Appeal that had found against the re-opening of the financial settlement between Mr. and Mrs. Gohil. Though the Court disagreed with the applicability of the principle of admissibility of evidence in Ladd v Marshall, it noted that in light of the evidence admitted against Mr. Gohil during his money-laundering convictions, the judge was correct in re-opening the settlement for material non-disclosure. The Court also deliberated on how applications for re-opening of family orders were to be made and how courts could assess the fresh issues.</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong></strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong>Tags : Divorce, settlement, non-disclosure, financial, order</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <!--<td><strong>Source : <a target="_new" href="http://www.manupatrafast.com/">newsroom.manupatra.com</a></strong></td>--> <td align="left" valign="top"><strong>Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>