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 2 Version 3
Supreme court to consider impact of fraud in divorce settlements Supreme court to consider impact of fraud in divorce settlements
(about 3 hours later)
The ex-wives of two wealthy men are taking claims for larger payouts to the supreme court, claiming that their divorce settlements left them short-changed. Alison Sharland received £10m from her ex-husband when they divorced, believing it was half his fortune, before coming to the conclusion that his Manchester software company was worth many more millions of pounds.
Charles Sharland, founder of the software company AppSense, and Bhadresh Gohil, who was jailed for helping a Nigerian state governor embezzle tens of millions of pounds, are accused of concealing the true value of their assets. Her case that she should have received significantly more from her former husband, Charles, opened in the country’s highest court on Monday with the 48-year-old from Wilmslow bring her action in conjunction with another woman who also believed her ex-husband concealed the true value of her wealth.
Their former spouses want to reopen financial negotiations on the grounds that fraudulent evidence was given, depriving them of a fair trial and a fair division of each couples’ property. Varsha Gohil settled for £270,000 plus a car from her former husband, Bhadresh, 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.
The hearing, before seven justices at the supreme court in Westminster, London, is assessing whether non-disclosure entitles a claimant to revise a concluded divorce agreement. In an extended, three-day hearing, the supreme court is this week examining their claims for significantly larger payouts. They allege they have been shortchanged and denied justice amid suggestions that such behaviour happens regularly in high value divorce cases – and they argue that all ex-spouses should be entitled to reopen negotiations in a concluded divorce agreement.
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.
Both women had reached agreement with their ex-husbands after beginning litigation and both subsequently came to believe they had been misled.
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 Manchester company were worth considerably more than previously revealed.
One estimate put the firm’s value at $1bn (£656m), although lawyers at the time told the court that it was worth between £31m and £47m. Sharland was found in an earlier case to have “laid a false trail by his dishonest evidence” and to have hidden the fact that he was considering floating the firm.
A fear of “floodgates opening” and thousands of ex-partners attempting to renegotiate divorce settlements did not constitute legal grounds for refusing Alison Sharland’s request, her counsel, Martin Pointer QC, told the supreme court. “The resources had all been built up during the marriage. This was a plain case for equal sharing.”A fear of “floodgates opening” and thousands of ex-partners attempting to renegotiate divorce settlements did not constitute legal grounds for refusing Alison Sharland’s request, her counsel, Martin Pointer QC, told the supreme court. “The resources had all been built up during the marriage. This was a plain case for equal sharing.”
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. Alison Sharland had accepted £10.35m in cash and properties from her ex-husband in the settlement but it later emerged that the shares in his company AppSense were worth considerably more than previously revealed.
Gohil, the appeal court had found, was an “out-and-out rogue involved in financial criminality on an eye-watering scale”. The couple have three grown-up children who remain financially dependent on their mother. One estimate put the firm’s value at $1bn (£656m), although lawyers at the time told the court that it was worth between £31m and £47m. Sharland was found in an earlier case to have “laid a false trail by his dishonest evidence” and to have hidden the fact that he was considering floating the firm.
Sally Harrison QC, counsel for his former wife, told the justices that: “Despite these findings, [Varsha Gohil] has no financial remedy to secure a fair distribution of the assets which the parties owned in 2004. “ At the court of appeal the judges had agreed that Charles Sharland’s non-disclosure had been deliberate but two of the three 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.
Bhadresh Gohil, the appeal court had found, was an “out-and-out rogue involved in financial criminality on an eye-watering scale”. The couple have three grown-up children who remain financially dependent on their mother.
Sally Harrison QC, counsel for his former wife, told the justices: “Despite these findings, [Varsha Gohil] has no financial remedy to secure a fair distribution of the assets which the parties owned in 2004.
“Throughout the proceedings the husband denied that he had any assets,” she added. “The wife would be deprived of a fair hearing and a fair outcome if the order were to stand.”“Throughout the proceedings the husband denied that he had any assets,” she added. “The wife would be deprived of a fair hearing and a fair outcome if the order were to stand.”
The court of appeal had previously ruled in Bhadresh Gohil’s favour saying that because the courts were not allowed to use evidence from the husband’s criminal trial, held in open court but not released by the Crown Prosecution Service, they could not prove that he was being dishonest in the original proceedings.
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.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.”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. Judgment is expected to be reserved until later this year. Some lawyers implied that the threat of perjury charges might be necessary to ensure that divorcing couples gave accurate testimony as they fight over how to divide the assets from their relationship.
Charmaine Hast, head of family law at Wedlake Bell solicitors, said: “Not disclosing assets in divorce makes a mockery of the court system. Perhaps criminal sanctions will evoke the standard that the courts expect and deserve … That way however much money you have, it matters not.”
Ayesha Vardag, a prominent divorce specialist, said the case highlighted the need for greater honesty in disclosure. “The divorce system at present encourages a cheat’s charter: in practical terms the penalties for lying to the courts are so low that many consider it worth the gamble,” she said.
“Equally nobody wants unending litigation, reopening a case because someone forgot to mention that they owned something petty. The guidance from the supreme court is likely to affect profoundly many cases.”
Judgment is expected to be reserved until later this year.