SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

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