For many years Samuel Phillips Law Firm has retained a strong and successful working relationship with...
Samuel Phillips Law Firm's family law department is widely recognised as one of the leading teams of experts in Newcastle.
Starting or growing a business can give the owners an enormous sense of pride and satisfaction.
Samuel Phillips Law Firm can count a number of north east educational establishments as regular clients. From this experience we understand the language and priorities of the education sector and can therefore deliver bespoke solutions that precisely meet the needs of the organisation.
We are very proud to count one of the UK's largest police forces as a long standing client...
Samuel Phillips Law Firm work with a wide range of non profit organisations and support their need to protect their interests...
by October 14, 2015Published on
The breakdown of a marriage is difficult enough, without the dynamic of lack of fairness in relation to financial matters due to one party hiding or devaluing assets.
Today our highest court has ruled that Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil can re-open their divorce cases as their Husband’s did not give full financial disclosure. This is a huge development.
In 2012 in the Gohil case, Lord Justice McFarlane, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said it was “simply not open to the court” to decide in 2012 about an issue discussed in 2004.
Both woman saw their positions as a point of principle.
Mrs Gohil discovered the extent of her ex-husband’s deceit when he was prosecuted in the criminal courts. She had a settlement of £270 000 plus a small car. In his criminal trail it became clear he had deliberately mislead the family court and had worked his way through about £35m
Mrs Sharland accepted a £10m settlement in 2010 based on an accountant’s valuation of her Husband’s company at the time of £7m – her team put a value on the company of £32m. Crucially Mr Sharland also stated he had no plans to float the company. It subsequently transpired when Mr Sharland decided to pursue plans to float the company; the open value was £620m, which made the real value of his share at least £150m.
Both cases have been sent back to reconsidered by the Family Court.
The last word goes to Lady Justice Hale, “This case is one of fraud. It would be extraordinary if the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation in a matrimonial case was in a worse position than the victim of an ordinary case.”
If any of the issues in this article are relevant to your situation please contact
Head of Family Department
Resolution Advanced Accreditation Financial Provision and Children Law
Law Society Accreditation Children Panel
Family Arbitrator (CIArb)
February 26, 2018