When dealing with financial matters upon divorce, both the Petitioner and the Respondent should always provide full and frank disclosure to each other of their respective financial positions. If either party hides assets, or is dishonest about the value of assets, or the true extent of their financial position, then any agreement reached and sealed by way of court order can later be set aside by the courts rendering any prior order void.
Even if you have assets or bank accounts abroad, this doesn’t exclude the disclosure process. It is also crucial to get accurate valuations of properties or assets regardless of which country they are situated, if this is in dispute.
An interesting case has hit the headlines lately relating to a business being undervalued by potentially hundreds of millions of pounds. Mrs Alison Sharland was married to her husband for 17 years and received over £10m in cash and properties, which might not seem to shabby for most people! Of course a fair settlement can only be determined once a complete and accurate picture of the parties’ financial position has been ascertained and this settlement was reached on the basis that Mr Sharland’s company was valued between £31.5m and £47.25m.
It later transpired, following financial order by the Court, that Mr Sharland had mislead the Court and his business was actually valued closer to £600m, some 15 – 20 times more than he had led the court to believe it was worth. Such a stark contrast in valuation seems particularly peculiar however the moral of the story is that an accurate valuation should have been obtained in the first place, as now the entire case seems set to unravel.
The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal whom actually dismissed Mrs Sharland’s arguments on the basis that, although Mr Sharland’s non-disclosure was “deliberate and dishonest” the financial settlement reached would have been the same in any event. Mrs Sharland is now appealing the Court of Appeal’s decision and the case will go to the Supreme Court in 2015.
One of the dissenting judges in the Court of Appeal stated that Mr Sharland’s fraud undermined the entire agreement and as a matter of public policy the Order should be set aside and a further decision should be taken in light of full and accurate financial disclosure. This principle is surely to be upheld and parties should always be completely honest with one another when settling finances upon divorce!
