Author: BPS Family Law

The case involved a couple who began living together in 2002. They married in 2004 and the wife became a homemaker and a full-time mother to their two children.

At the time they met, the husband was the chief executive of an online fashion retailer and owned company shares worth £1.2m. The wife had no significant wealth.

The husband continued to develop his company, which began to grow. He eventually sold some of his shares for £73m, which he and the wife invested in property and other assets while using some for the family to enjoy a higher standard of living.

In 2013, the husband and wife separated. Their combined assets totalled £219.5m, of which £140.8m represented the value of the husband’s remaining shares. He considered that the shares should be left out of settlement calculations because they were a non-matrimonial asset as he had owned them long before he met his wife.

The wife argued that the current value of the husband’s shares was a result of growth made possible by him being free to develop the company while she was the homemaker. They should therefore be shared as a matrimonial asset.

The court found in her favour. It held that she had been an excellent homemaker and mother, and the parties had contributed equally to the welfare of the family.

In fairness to her, the husband’s shares could not be left out of account altogether. They had been part of the family economy.

The fair solution was to give half to the husband as personal, non-matrimonial property and treat the other half as matrimonial property to be evenly shared, thereby giving the wife a quarter of their value and an overall award of £69.5m.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court redefined the law where one party to a marriage or a civil partnership has failed to make full and frank disclosure of their assets following the judgements in the high profile cases of Gohil and Sharland.

Sally Harrison QC and Samantha Hillas from St John’s Buildings, both of whom have regularly formed part of our strong legal team at BPS Law for a number of years, successfully represented Varsha Gohil in her appeal to the Supreme Court, highlighting their strength as advocates in divorce proceedings.

If you believe that you are in similar situation and your ex-spouse is living a lifestyle which is not representative of his or her disclosed income either to you or to the Court at the time of your separation then we have a formidable legal team who will assist you.

The Judgement both in this case and the case of Mrs Sharland strengthens the Court’s ability to enforce the duty of spouses to be fully transparent about their assets, income, business interest and overall financial position at the time of separation.

The law extends not only to divorce proceedings but to spouses who are have entered into pre-nuptial agreements and separation agreements.

The need to tell your spouse your precise financially position has never been greater. The ability to re-open a settlement if one person has failed to do so has been highlighted extensively by these recent judgements.

Also, there is no time limit. So no matter how long ago you were divorced if you feel that your spouse failed to tell you everything at that time then we can advise you as to your rights and the options available to you.