Bombay HC: Railway Employee With Valid Privilege Pass is Bona Fide Passenger Despite Missing Entries  ||  Delhi High Court: Mere Pleadings Made To Prosecute or Defend a Case Do Not Amount To Defamation  ||  Delhi High Court: Asking an Accused To Cross-Examine a Witness Without Legal Aid Vitiates The Trial  ||  Delhi High Court: Recruitment Notice Error Creates No Appointment Right Without Vacancy  ||  Supreme Court: Subordinate Legislation Takes Effect Only From its Publication in The Official Gazette  ||  Supreme Court: DDA Must Adopt a Litigation Policy To Screen Cases and Avoid Unnecessary Filings  ||  Authorities Holding Public Auctions Must Disclose All Known Encumbrances and Related Litigation  ||  SC: Compensatory Allowances Must Be Included While Computing Overtime Wages U/S 59 of Factories Act  ||  SC: NGT Has No Jurisdiction to Decide Disputes Relating to Building Plan Violations  ||  SC: Evidence is Often Fabricated Using AI And False Allegations are Rampant in Matrimonial Cases    

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