Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

Court of Protection Practice and Procedure Conference 2016

A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking

17 FEB 2016

AB v CD [2016] EWHC 10 (Fam)

AB v CD [2016] EWHC 10 (Fam)
Family Division, Roberts J, 11 January 2016)

Financial remedies – Consent order – Appeal – Non-disclosure – Failure by wife to notify court of a forthcoming investment in the company which would increase the share value – Whether the consent order should be set aside

The husband’s appeal was allowed and the consent order was set aside on the basis that the wife had failed to provide full and frank disclosure.

During the negotiations in financial remedy proceedings the wife failed to disclose that an investment of £3.5m was going to be made to the company of which she was a director and shareholder. Both the husband and wife held shares in the company as, as a result of the investment, the share value would increase. One of the terms of the consent order was that the husband would transfer his shares to the wife.

The husband appealed the consent order on the basis that, at the time of the agreement, the wife had failed to provide full and frank disclosure of her financial circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and the consent order was set aside.

The information provided by the wife had not been full and frank but the judge stopped short of finding that there had been deliberate fraud or deception by the wife. The wife believed at the time that she had complied with her duty to the court. There was no hesitation in concluding that the non-disclosure was material to the determination. The husband was deprived of the opportunity of deciding whether to agree to the terms of the proposed consent order on a fully-informed basis. The husband's submission that he would not have agreed to terms if he had been fully informed was accepted. The potential undervalue of the company shares was a fundamental obstacle to the integrity of the consent order.

The matter was relisted for further directions and the parties were urged to reach an agreement.

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: FD11D02580

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 10 (Fam)


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 11/01/2016

Before :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :


- and -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Nicholas Yates (instructed by Bromets LLP) for the Applicant
And the respondent acting in person 

Hearing dates: 22nd June to 1st July 2015 and 11TH November 2015

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Family Law


"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues" Sir Mark Potter P

More Info from £49.00
Available in Family Law Online
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts

Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts

"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer" Solicitors Journal

Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters