that “the [wife] believes that the [husband]
has not provided full and frank disclosure
of his financial circumstances (although
this is disputed by the [husband]), but is
compromising her claims in the terms
set out in this consent order despite this
in order to achieve finality”]. Mrs Gohil
subsequently applied to set aside the Order
on the ground that Mr Gohil had fraudulently
failed to disclose his assets. These
proceedings were delayed, largely because
Mr Gohil was charged with serious moneylaundering offences and was eventually
convicted and committed to prison.
The Order was set aside, but Mr Gohil
appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the
husband’s appeal, concluding that there
was no admissible evidence to support
the Judge’s conclusions on material nondisclosure and Mrs Sharland appealed to
the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has unanimously
allowed Mrs Gohil’s appeal. It has found
that words such as those used in the
Recital have no legal effect in a financial
order in divorce proceedings. The husband
owed a duty to the court to make full and
frank disclosure of his resources, without
which the court would be disabled from
discharging its duty under the law to
determine a fair settlement. The evidence
that had been relied on from Mr Gohil’s
criminal proceedings had been obtained
from sources outside the UK (which had
since been held inadmissible), however,
even if only the remaining admissible
evidence had been relied on it would have
still have been concluded that the Mr Gohil
was guilty of material non-disclosure.
The issues raised in the Supreme Court
will have implications in many other cases,
not just those involving multi-millionaires.
In fact it is likely that the outcome will
actually be even more important within the
cases where there is barely enough to go
round to meet everyone’s needs because
access to concealed assets will in those
circumstances make a huge difference to a
families standard of living.
A fair financial settlement within divorce
can only be reached if it is based on the
true value of the assets.
Those who are not willing to be open and
honest about their financial situation within
a divorce also need to give consideration
to any children of the family, who will no
doubt be impacted by their parents being
locked into a hostile legal battle.
Hopefully the court decision in these
appeals will send out a clear message
to everyone going through a divorce that
honesty is not only the best policy, but the
only one which will be tolerated.
By Gemma Hope
55