Gohil v Gohil: FD 25 Sep 2012

The parties had divorced and financial relief settled. W now applied to have the order set aside on the grounds of alleged serious material non-disclosure, fraud and misrepresentation by the husband. W had attended his later trial and obtained much information.
Held: One paragraph of the order was set aside setting aside the order that the order then made was final.


Moylan J


[2012] EWHC 2897 (Fam)


England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoCrown Prosecution Service and Another v Gohil CA 26-Nov-2012
The CPS had obtained evidence through letters of request. Mr and Mrs Gohil had previously divorced and reached a financial settlement. The evidence apparently disclosed further substantial assets which W said had not been disclosed in the settlement . .
Appeal fromGohil v Gohil (No 2) CA 13-Mar-2014
The parties had agreed financial provision on their divorce, but W subsequently discovered what she said was material non-disclosure by H. The court was now asked whether a court of first instance had jurisdiction to set aside a final financial . .
At FDGohil v Gohil SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court was asked ‘Do the principles referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591293