Divorce row wives win Supreme Court victory

Sharland had accepted £10.35m in cash for her divorce in 2010 from and received 30% of the proceeds of shares held by the company her husband had founded, AppSense Holdings, when he sold them, believing it was half of his wealth. He said that her “claim for further capital provision should therefore proceed”.

Supreme Court justices, who analysed the disputes at a hearing in London in June, have now ruled in favour of the women. As the Court’s judgment makes clear, there are enormous still obstacles ahead of Varsha Gohil before she is able to achieve a fair outcome to her case.

Gohil, who said her children had given her the strength to continue fighting the case, added: “There are absolutely no winners in divorce and more than a thought has to be given to the children of families locked in this type of litigation”. The price they pay is a very heavy one.

In both cases, lower courts ruled that even though the men were dishonest that did not mean they should any extra money. Additionally, she heard of her ex-husband’s plans to float the firm on the Stock Exchange.

One estimate put the firm’s value at $1bn (£656m), although lawyers at the time told the court that it was worth between £31m and £47m.

“By the husband’s fraud and the judge’s order, she had been deprived of her right to a full and fair hearing of her claims”, she said.

Mrs Sharland said she hoped that the ruling would send a message to divorcing couples.

Catherine Thomas, managing director of law firm Vardags, who represented Michelle Young in a battle to unearth her late husband Scot’s own wealth resulting in a £26m payout, told IBTimes United Kingdom she was pleased with the ruling and the precedent it had set.

However, today’s ruling, by the highest court in the land – involving seven Supreme Court judges – will now allow both to appeal that decision.

Mr Sharland’s lawyers accepted today’s judgement “marked a fundamental chnage in the law”.

“We still maintain that settlement was perfectly fair and ensured Mrs Sharland was very well looked after by any standards”.

“The Supreme Court will decide whether that is fair, or whether any dishonesty – however small – can reopen an order”.

She said: ‘It would be extraordinary if the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation, which led her to compromise her claim to financial remedies in a matrimonial case, were in a worse position than the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation in an ordinary contract case.

Commenting on the Supreme Court ruling, solicitor Paul Graham Coy, partner at Mundays, said: “Perseverance wins out”.

The pair’s lawyer Irwin Mitchell partner Ros Bever said she was pleased the judges took the opportunity to state clearly that spouses can not mislead the courts.

“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”.