The Supreme Court has today decided that the cases of Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil (which were jointly heard by the Supreme Court in June 2015) should be re-examined by the High Court. Both cases raised questions about how the courts should deal with instances where divorce settlements are decided based on information which is later found to be intentionally false or incomplete. In both cases, the husbands failed to provide full financial disclosure. The cases will now be re-considered by the High Court, to decide whether Mrs Sharland and Mrs Gohil’s financial settlements should be amended, based on the correct and full information available to the court.
These cases are a stark reminder about the importance of full and frank disclosure and that dishonesty during financial remedy proceedings will not be tolerated by the courts.