Women whose husbands hid true wealth win Supreme Court appeals for more money

In both cases, President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, sitting with Deputy President Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge unanimously allowed the appeals ofAlison Sharland and Varsha Gohil – with both cases being returned to the High Court.

In Sharland the husband deliberately and dishonestly failed to disclose the true state of his finances. The Court of Appeal held the inferior court was entitled to decide this was not material because it did not lead to an order different to the one the court would have otherwise made.

The Supreme Court ruled this decision was wrong.

Lady Hale explained that on the facts of this case it was clear the judge would not have made the order he did, when he did, in the absence of Mr Sharland’s fraud, and the consent order should have been set aside.

The judge had misinterpreted Livesey, which had drawn a distinction between triviality and materiality at the date of the order and not at some later date.

He had also been wrong to deprive Mrs Sharland of a full and fair hearing of her claims by re-making his decision at the hearing of the application on the basis of the evidence then before him.

She added that the consent order should not be sealed and the matter should return to the Family Division for further directions.

Similarly, in Gohil, the Court of Appeal favoured the husband, after the judge at first instance made an order allowing for the wife’s application to be reopened, and stated that the Senior Courts Act 1981, s.17(1) admits no ancillary exception.

That section provides that the an application for a new trial in a case heard by a judge of the High Court requires to be made to the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeal was wrong in this conclusion.