Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5  ||  Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator  ||  SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A)  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved