This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-ruling-in-favour-of-ex-wives-renegotiating-divorce-settlement-may-open-floodgates-a6693521.html
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Supreme Court ruling in favour of ex-wives renegotiating divorce settlement may 'open floodgates' | Supreme Court ruling in favour of ex-wives renegotiating divorce settlement may 'open floodgates' |
(2 days later) | |
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. | 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, 48, and Varsha Gohil, 50, claimed their former husbands hid the extent of their true wealth when they divorced. | Alison Sharland, 48, and Varsha Gohil, 50, claimed their former husbands hid the extent of their true wealth when they divorced. |
On Wednesday the UK’s Supreme Court ruled their cases should go before the High Court, against the wishes of their former spouses, as Ms Sharland had been deprived “of a full and fair hearing," according to Lady Hale in the court’s judgement. | On Wednesday the UK’s Supreme Court ruled their cases should go before the High Court, against the wishes of their former spouses, as Ms Sharland had been deprived “of a full and fair hearing," according to Lady Hale in the court’s judgement. |
Lord Hale, also ruling, said Mr Gohil had a “duty” to make “full disclosure”. | Lord Hale, also ruling, said Mr Gohil had a “duty” to make “full disclosure”. |
Ms Sharland welcomed the decision, telling reporters: "My legal battle has never been about the money, it has always been a matter of principle”. | Ms Sharland welcomed the decision, telling reporters: "My legal battle has never been about the money, it has always been a matter of principle”. |
She accepted more than £10million in case in her divorce settlement three years ago. Her ex-husband’s business was valued at £1billion by financial press at the time. | She accepted more than £10million in case in her divorce settlement three years ago. Her ex-husband’s business was valued at £1billion by financial press at the time. |
After the case, Ms Gohil commented there were “no winners in divorce” – especially for children involved. “The price they pay is a very heavy one,” she said. | After the case, Ms Gohil commented there were “no winners in divorce” – especially for children involved. “The price they pay is a very heavy one,” she said. |
But, she hoped, "spouses subject to deceit and deliberate financial skulduggery in a divorce” would now be able to seek recourse thanks to the “tireless” efforts of her legal team. | But, she hoped, "spouses subject to deceit and deliberate financial skulduggery in a divorce” would now be able to seek recourse thanks to the “tireless” efforts of her legal team. |
The ruling may open the courts for more people to attempt to renegotiate their settlements. | The ruling may open the courts for more people to attempt to renegotiate their settlements. |
Graham Coy, a partner at law firm Mundays, said the decision "could open the floodgates for more people to try and renegotiate historic divorce settlements.” | Graham Coy, a partner at law firm Mundays, said the decision "could open the floodgates for more people to try and renegotiate historic divorce settlements.” |
But the ruling was broadly welcomed with family law firm Vardags, who called the decision “long overdue.” | But the ruling was broadly welcomed with family law firm Vardags, who called the decision “long overdue.” |
Managing Director of the firm Catherine Thomas told The Independent: “If you try to hide your assets on divorce there will be consequences - and the court will not be your friend.” | Managing Director of the firm Catherine Thomas told The Independent: “If you try to hide your assets on divorce there will be consequences - and the court will not be your friend.” |
Additional reporting by Press Association | Additional reporting by Press Association |
Previous version
1
Next version