LexisLibrary and LexisPSL
Sign up for a free trial today and get full access for a weekTrial
'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.
We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case alongside Alison Sharland’s. 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.
We believe the situation that both women find themselves in is unfair and that is why we applied for permission to take their cases to the Supreme Court.
In this case the Court of Appeal judges admitted having sympathy with Mrs Gohil’s situation. In our view if family law judges, who are given broad discretion to ensure fairness in proceedings, are having to acknowledge this then something in the letter of the law has stopped that fairness from prevailing.
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.'
A practical and user friendly guide to the more challenging areas of ancillary relief practice