J&K&L HC: Delay in Executing Preventive Detention on Unsubstantiated Medical Ground Makes it Invalid  ||  Delhi HC Allows AITA Results For Interim Management and Directs Fresh Elections Under New Sports Law  ||  J&K&L HC: Preventive Detention U/S 129 BNSS During Proceedings Must Satisfy Strict Legal Standards  ||  Gujarat HC: Firing in Air at a Wedding Without Intent to Harm Does Not Amount to Attempt to Murder  ||  Bom HC: Developers’ Profit Rights in Redevelopment Cannot Override Members’ Right to Safe Housing  ||  Supreme Court: Joint Accused Statements are Admissible Only When They Result in Distinct Discoveries  ||  SC to Ex-MLA in Money Laundering Case: Duped Homebuyer Must be Safeguarded First, then Consider Bail  ||  Supreme Court: Right to a Speedy Trial Cannot Override NDPS Act Bail Conditions  ||  SC: Relatives Cannot be Implicated in Bigamy Solely Based on Knowledge of a Second Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Service Inam Land Attached to a Mosque Constitutes Waqf Property and is Inalienable    

Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v gohil - (14 Oct 2015)

Financial settlements between spouses reopened for non-disclosure of assets

Family

The United Kingdom Supreme Court considered the effects of material non-disclosure at financial settlement between husband and wife on divorce in Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil. 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.

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.

Tags : DIVORCE   SETTLEMENT   NON-DISCLOSURE   FINANCIAL   ORDER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved