All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
'Both cases raise serious issues about how the courts should handle situations where information shared with the court and used to agree a divorce settlement is later found to be false or incomplete. We believe the position that both women find themselves in is unfair and that is why we are taking their cases to the Supreme Court.
To both women these cases are about a matter of principle and justice. Surely most people would hate to be in a situation where their former partner has been able to withhold information during their divorce proceedings; and for there to be no opportunity to challenge this when new information comes to light. The current situation sends out completely the wrong message in what is and is not acceptable in terms of disclosing financial information.
Sadly it is often only the larger cases where there are the funds available to take such cases to the appeal courts. However the issues in these latest cases do not apply only to those where there are large sums at stake; the application is far more wide reaching. The decisions will affect those people with more modest assets and sums involved which is why they are so important.
I feel for those who aren't able to fund their cases because they can't get legal aid and have no other means of getting help. Separation and divorce is stressful enough without having to worry about whether or not you can afford to go to court. As a result, many people might be forced into sitting back and accepting what they have been told even if they are suspicious about the veracity of their former partner's disclosure.
Dishonesty in any legal proceedings should not be tolerated, the family court should not be an exception and we look forward to putting our cases forward to the Supreme Court judges.'
'The Supreme Court has the responsibility of considering the respective arguments in Mr and Mrs Sharland's divorce.
We simply believe it would be inappropriate to prejudice those very important deliberations by taking relevant arguments to the media before they are presented to the Court.
We are confident, however, that the Supreme Court judges will follow the example of their colleagues in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in agreeing that the provision made by Mr Sharland for both his family and his ex-wife was fair and reasonable.'
A practical and user friendly guide to the more challenging areas of ancillary relief practice