Supreme Court to decide on 'unfair' divorce settlements

Two women duped into accepting 'unfair' divorce settlements are to ask the Supreme Court to overturn their court orders in a three-day hearing starting today.

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil claim that their husbands deliberately misled them and the court by providing false information as to the true extent of their wealth during the original hearings.

There are concerns in some legal quarters that if the settlements are not overturned, these cases will set a future precedent to excuse non-disclosure in divorce proceedings.

Sharland agreed to what she believed was a 50/50 split divorce settlement after 17 years of marriage.

However, it later came to light that her ex-husband had misled the courts as to the true value of his business and plans for a future initial public offering (IPO) flotation.

Instead of being valued at between £31m and £47m, his Appsense business was reported in the financial press as being ready to float at a value of $1bn.

The Court of Appeal agreed that this non-disclosure had been deliberate, but two of the three judges believed they should not overturn the original settlement because although his evidence was 'seriously misleading', it would not have led to a significantly different outcome.

Two years after her divorce, Gohil discovered that her husband had failed to fully disclose his finances. During the couple's divorce Gohil had accepted £270,000 and a car as a settlement.

Her ex-husband was convicted of fraud offences and jailed for ten years in 2010. However, during the criminal trial, further evidence of the extent of his intentional non-disclosure in the original divorce proceedings emerged.

In June 2012, Mr Justice Moylan, sitting in the High Court, ruled that Gohil's ex-husband had failed to properly disclose his financial circumstances and agreed to scrap the settlement.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling because the courts were not allowed to use evidence from the husband's criminal trial to prove he had been dishonest in the original proceedings.

Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, who are representing both women, say they hope the Supreme Court will demonstrate that dishonesty will not be tolerated in the family courts.

Ros Bever, a partner at 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.' She added: 'The current situation sends out completely the wrong message in what is and is not acceptable in terms of disclosing financial information.'

Bever also expressed sympathy for those divorcing couples who are now unable to fund their cases due to a lack of legal aid available to them.

'Separation and divorce is stressful enough without having to worry about whether or not you can afford to go to court,' she said. 'As a result, many people might be forced into sitting back and accepting what they have been told even if they are suspicious about the veracity of their former partner's disclosure.

'Dishonesty in any legal proceedings should not be tolerated; the family court should not be an exception and we look forward to putting our cases forward to the Supreme Court judges.'