Divorce lawyers expect ‘influx’ of cases to challenge historic settlements

In a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court, the judges ruled in favour of the women, who will now go back to the courts for a rehearing of their divorce claims.

Two divorcees who said their millionaire ex-husbands lied to judges over how much they were worth won the backing of the UK Supreme Court on Wednesday.

“Not only do you have the opportunity to get more money, but you can get it for longer”, Julian Bremner, a partner with the law firm Rayden Solicitors, told the New York Times previous year.

Mrs Gohil’s husband was convicted of money laundering following their divorce.

Judge Lady Hale said the Sharland case was one of “fraud”.

“Unfortunately, the evidence was manipulated by my estranged husband and it was not therefore possible to rely on the evidence of either of our accountants when considering the value of what I believe was and is the most valuable asset”.

“To both women these cases are about a matter of principle and justice”.

At the time of her divorce, Mrs Sharland accepted more than £10million in cash and properties from ex-husband Charles, and Mrs Gohil was given £270,000 and a Peugeot when she was separated in 2004.

She now says that unknown to her or the courts he had sqirrelled away £35million. “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.

Both MrsGohil and Mrs Sharland had had reached agreements with their ex-husbands after beginning litigation, but both subsequently thought that they had been misled.

Alison Sharland, 48, is fighting a £10.3million deal which she had accepted before she discovered that her husband’s software company was valued at almost 1 billion USA dollars (£620million).

The Court of Appeal also ruled he had been dishonest, but did not say Mrs Sharland’s settlement should be increased.

“It’s inevitable that others who feel they have been misled during divorce proceedings will seek to bring their cases back to court and we can expect to see a significant rise in the number of challenges to existing divorce settlements”.

“Today’s judgment is undeniably a victory not only for Ms Sharland and Ms Gohil, but for all those asserting their rights to know the truth about their spouse’s finances”.

Read the full decisions here.

The court of appeal had previously ruled in Bhadresh Gohil’s favour, saying that because the courts were not allowed to use evidence from the husband’s criminal trial, held in open court but not released by the Crown Prosecution Service, they could not prove that he was being dishonest in the original proceedings.

Another justice, Lord Wilson, said Gohil’s ex-husband had a “duty” to make “full disclosure”.

“For the individuals involved, however, the sense of relief may be fleeting. Justice has – quite rightly – been upheld”.

Lawyers say the cases raise questions of general public importance.

“Family law is complicated and entirely discretionary and there could be a danger that this change may open the floodgates to thousands of couples revisiting the agreements they reached”.