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

18 MAR 2014

Gohil v Gohil [2014] EWCA Civ 274

Gohil v Gohil [2014] EWCA Civ 274
(Court of Appeal, Arden, Pitchford, McFarlane LJJ, 13 March 2014)

[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2015] 1 FLR 178]

Financial remedies - Disclosure - Application to re-open proceedings - Evidence
The full judgment is available below.
In protracted financial remedy proceedings the main issue was the extent to which the husband had provided full and frank disclosure of his financial position. He disclosed very limited financial resources held in his own name although with other resources he had access to but owned by his parents. The wife claimed this was a false position and that he had far greater financial worth.
The parties agreed a compromise and a consent order was made which included the wife's suspicions as to the truth of the husband's disclosure. Three years later the wife applied to set aside the order on the basis of non-disclosure, fraud and misrepresentation. During those proceedings the husband was convicted of fraud and money laundering of US$57m and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The wife was successful in her application for disclosure of material held by the CPS and fresh evidence was adduced.
The judge held that the husband had failed to provide full and frank disclosure and ordered a re-hearing of the wife's financial remedies application. The husband appealed. In the Court of Appeal the CPS and Secretary of State's appeal against the disclosure order was allowed.
The husband's appeal was allowed. Any application for a new trial in a case heard by a High Court judge had to be made to the Court of Appeal. Further the judge had fallen into error in setting aside the final consent order on the grounds that fresh evidence adduced fell within the guidelines of Ladd v Marshall. The judge's findings had not been capable of establishing material non-disclosure as the evidence from the criminal proceedings, including witness statements had not been material upon which he could rely for the purposes of the family proceedings. His decision could not stand. The wife's application was dismissed.

THe fully referenced, judicially approved judgment and headnote will appear in a forthcoming issue of Family Law Reports. A detailed summary and analysis of the case will appear in Family Law.
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 274

Case No: B6/2013/1526
B6/2013/1526 (A)
Mr Justice Moylan
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 13/03/2014
Before :


Between :

Bhadrseh Babulal Gohil


  • - and -

Varsha Babul Gohil


Mr James Turner QC and Mr George Gordon (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) for the Appellant
Mr Christopher Wagstaffe QC and Ms Nicola Fox (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 10 December 2013

The full judgment is available to download here.

Family Law


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

More Info from £49.00
Available in Family Law Online
Family Law Online

Family Law Online

Get a FREE trial today! The fastest way to access the latest law reports, case law, commentary,...

Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters