Gohil v Gohil
A wife could apply to set aside a consent order on the ground of the husband's non disclosure, even though the evidence of non disclosure came from criminal proceedings and was not admissible in its own right.
Facts
Mrs Gohil agreed a consent order with her husband for a lump sum, and the order recorded that she believed he had not disclosed all his assets. He was later convicted of money laundering, and evidence in the criminal proceedings suggested that he had hidden substantial assets. She applied to set aside the consent order. The judge set it aside, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the judge had relied on evidence which was not admissible.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court allowed Mrs Gohil's appeal and restored the judge's order. Lord Wilson said that the duty of full and frank disclosure is fundamental to the court's ability to make a fair order. Where a party has been dishonest in his disclosure, the burden is on him to show that the non disclosure was not material. The judge had sufficient admissible evidence to conclude that the husband had failed to disclose his assets, and the order should be set aside. The court confirmed that the High Court had power to set aside consent orders for non disclosure.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246
- Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410
- Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2012] Fam 1
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618
- Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] 3 WLR 1170
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
- Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
