A matter of principle: two women take their dishonest ex-husbands to the Supreme Court over their divorce settlements

Oct 26, 2015

Written By Sofia Gymer, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil made legal history earlier this month, when the Supreme Court made the landmark decision that their divorce settlements must be re-evaluated on the account that their husbands had lied about their wealth.

This decision overruled lower courts, who although assenting that their ex-partners had lied about their wealth, did not grant them compensation or a re-evaluation of the settlements.

Varsha Gohil, mother of three, had accepted £270,000 and the Peugeot family car in the original divorce settlement, six years before her husband was tried and jailed for 10 years following accounts of fraud and money laundering.

Unbeknown to his wife and the courts, Bhadresh Gohil had stashed away an estimated £35m. Furthermore, it was revealed that he had aided a corrupt Nigerian politician to steal £50m in oil money from the region he governed.

Alison Sharland had originally accepted £10.3m, before finding out that her husband’s software company was in fact valued at £650m. Her husband’s lawyers had told the courts that the value of the company was between £31m and £47m.

Particularly for Alison Sharland, this was a case of principle rather than monetary need. Following the decision, Sharland said: "I know that there are potentially others who are not in the same position as me financially, those who cannot afford to pursue a principle."

"I hope that the decision sends out a message to everyone going through a divorce that they cannot lie in the family courts and get away with it."

The decision is likely to have widespread implications and pave the way for many divorcees to challenge their divorce settlements.

Lady Hale said: “This case is one of fraud. It would be extraordinary if the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation in a matrimonial case was in a worse position than the victim of an ordinary case.”

The Evening Standard notes that divorce law campaigners and feminist groups were “delighted” and that the decision will “force other husbands to declare their assets honestly.”

However, it is important to remember that this ruling is beneficial to both parties, not just wives. This decision stresses that irrelevant of gender or wealth, all parties involved must not lie before the courts in divorce proceedings. Otherwise, the settlement will be invalid and open to re-evaluation.

The solicitor who is representing the two women, Ros Bever, family partner with Irwin Mitchell, said: "Both cases raise serious issues about how the courts should handle situations where information shared with the court and used to agree a divorce settlement is later found to be false or incomplete... these cases are about a matter of principle and justice.

“Dishonesty in any legal proceedings should not be tolerated; the family court should not be an exception.”

Blog