UK Supreme Court in landmark divorce ruling

The Supreme Court has ruled two women should receive more money after they claimed they were misled by their ex-partners, a decision that could “open the floodgates” for renegotiating divorce settlements.

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil said the men hid the true extent of their wealth when the deals were made.

“Whilst the previous leading Supreme Court case on non-disclosure, the Anglo-Nigerian case of Petrodel v Prest has been branded by a few as a “cheat’s charter” insofar as it provided great comfort for those whose wealth is tied up in complex off-shore structures, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sharland and Gohil is, in many ways, a victory for often vulnerable wives”. Gohil said: “I’m absolutely relieved by this judgment”.

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil argued that their divorce settlements were unfair because their husbands defrauded them.

‘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’. “Speed economy and pragmatism on their own can lead to serious miscarriages of justice as we have seen only recently in the case of the wrongfully adopted baby, and in these cases too where the wives have had to go all the way to the Supreme Court”.

Mrs Gohil had accepted £270,000 plus a auto from ex-husband Bhadresh, 50, more than a decade ago.

They had analysed each case separately following hearings in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

‘The emotional strain of it is huge on everyone, the drain in financial resources is enormous and none of it serves the family.

Supreme Court justices were told that both women had reached agreements with their ex-husbands after beginning litigation and that both subsequently thought that they had been misled.

Mrs Sharland accepted more than £10 million in cash and properties from ex-husband Charles three years ago, justices were told.

Neither woman has yet said how much they now want.

“The Supreme Court will decide whether that is fair, or whether any dishonesty – however small – can reopen an order”. The ruling by five Supreme Court judges today sends the right message that fraud in divorce cases is unacceptable and that parties should not be allowed to benefit from such deception.

A High Court judge said Mr Sharland’s evidence had been “seriously misleading” but concluded it did not make any difference to the divorce settlement.

“For the individuals involved, however, the sense of relief may be fleeting”. Valuing a private company is a perennial issue for the divorce courts – the challenge being agreeing a value in the absence of a purchaser to test the market – but where expert valuations have been obtained on a full disclosure of the material facts, divorcees have nothing to fear; the courts appreciate that market fluctuations are a fact of life. “Justice has – quite rightly – been upheld”.

Lawyers say the cases raise questions of general public importance and could affect other divorced couples.