This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/08/supreme-court-divorce-settlements-alison-sharland-varsha-gohil-ex-husbands
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme court to consider impact of fraud in divorce settlements | Supreme court to consider impact of fraud in divorce settlements |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The former wives of two wealthy men are taking their claims for larger payouts to the supreme court, claiming that their divorce settlements left them short-changed. | The former wives of two wealthy men are taking their claims for larger payouts to the supreme court, claiming that their divorce settlements left them short-changed. |
| Charles Sharland and Bhadresh Gohil are accused of concealing the true value of their assets. Their former spouses are seeking to reopen financial negotiations on the grounds that the courts were provided with fraudulent evidence. | Charles Sharland and Bhadresh Gohil are accused of concealing the true value of their assets. Their former spouses are seeking to reopen financial negotiations on the grounds that the courts were provided with fraudulent evidence. |
| The hearing, before seven justices at the supreme court in Westminster, London, will assess whether non-disclosure entitles a claimant to reinstate a concluded divorce trial. | The hearing, before seven justices at the supreme court in Westminster, London, will assess whether non-disclosure entitles a claimant to reinstate a concluded divorce trial. |
| The applications by Alison Sharland, 48, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, and Varsha Gohil, 50, from north London, both represented by the law firm Irwin Mitchell, have been joined for the justices to examine the impact of fraud on matrimonial disputes. | The applications by Alison Sharland, 48, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, and Varsha Gohil, 50, from north London, both represented by the law firm Irwin Mitchell, have been joined for the justices to examine the impact of fraud on matrimonial disputes. |
| Sharland had accepted more than £10m in cash and properties from her ex-husband in the settlement but it later emerged that the shares in his company were worth considerably more than previously revealed. One estimate put the firm’s value at $1bn (£656m). | Sharland had accepted more than £10m in cash and properties from her ex-husband in the settlement but it later emerged that the shares in his company were worth considerably more than previously revealed. One estimate put the firm’s value at $1bn (£656m). |
| Gohil had accepted £270,000 plus a car in her divorce settlement in 2004. But it later became clear that her husband, who was tried and jailed for fraud and money-laundering sums of up to £37m, had not given the court accurate information about his finances | Gohil had accepted £270,000 plus a car in her divorce settlement in 2004. But it later became clear that her husband, who was tried and jailed for fraud and money-laundering sums of up to £37m, had not given the court accurate information about his finances |
| Ros Bever, a partner in the family and divorce law team at Irwin Mitchell, said: “This is yet another case in which an unfair settlement has been agreed because of one party being dishonest and not sharing all the details of their wealth to the courts. | |
| “Both cases raise serious issues about how the courts should handle cases where information shared with the court and used to agree a divorce settlement is later found to be false or incomplete.” | “Both cases raise serious issues about how the courts should handle cases where information shared with the court and used to agree a divorce settlement is later found to be false or incomplete.” |
| She added: “Dishonesty in any legal proceedings should not be tolerated. The family court should not be an exception. There are numerous legal arguments to be heard by the supreme court but we hope that ultimately justice will be done and will be seen to be done.” | |
| The hearing will last three days. | The hearing will last three days. |