Sharland, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, had accepted £10.35m in cash and properties from her ex-husband, Charles, in the settlement three years ago, justices were told.
Advertisement
‘The courts have at last demonstrated that the English legal system will not allow dishonest spouses to mislead the court or their former partner. “It’s long overdue”, she said.
Supreme Court justices indicated that both women’s claims would return to the High Court for further consideration.
However, Supreme Court justices – who analysed the disputes at a hearing in London in June – have today ruled in favour of the women.
Dan Chalmers, a solicitor at legal firm Moore Blatch, said: “There could be an increase in the number of people who are challenging existing court orders”.
“There are no winners in divorce and more than a thought has to be given to the families and the children locked in this type of litigation”, Gohill said. The price they pay is a very heavy one. “The emotional strain of it is huge on everyone, the drain in financial resources is enormous and none of it serves the family”, she said. We are thrilled that Supreme Court has confirmed that the Family Court is not an exception to the general rule and that it is no more acceptable to lie there than it is in any other court’. They argued that they received an unfair financial settlement than they deserved as a result. Additionally, she heard of her ex-husband’s plans to float the firm on the Stock Exchange.
Rosie Schumm, a partner in family law at the firm Wedlake Bell, said: “In answer to those that say this case opens the floodgates to claims by wronged wives, the much more powerful point is that it will act as a clear deterrent to those husbands who are tempted to defraud their wives”.
His accountants valued his shares at £7million, while his wife’s team put the value at £32million.
In Ms Gohil’s case, Lord Wilson declared that the Court of Appeal had taken an “erroneous approach to the admissibility of – so it appears – all the evidence”, and as a result, “its dismissal of her application can not stand”.
The Court of Appeal had ruled the misleading evidence would not have led to a significantly different divorce settlement.
Mr Sharland’s lawyers accepted today’s judgement “marked a fundamental chnage in the law”.
In one case, Sharland vs Sharland, Mrs Sharland asked for financial compensation from her ex-husband, Mr Sharland.
“We still maintain that settlement was perfectly fair and ensured Mrs Sharland was very well looked after by any standards”.
The ruling marks a seismic shift in how the courts will treat spouses who do not disclose the true value of their assets during divorce proceedings.
“The Supreme Court will decide whether that is fair, or whether any dishonesty – however small – can reopen an order”.
Their cases had both been rejected by Britain’s Court of Appeal, but on Wednesday the Supreme Court backed the women, a decision which lawyers said could lead to others seeking to have divorce settlements renegotiated.
Advertisement
“However, whether the money is still there and readily available for Mrs Sharland and Mrs Gohil is another matter entirely – they could still have a significant struggle on their hands to recoup assets which they are entitled to and were unfairly duped out of”.
