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 Also – Crown 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 . .
    [2012] EWCA Civ 1550, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 115, [2013] 2 WLR 1123, [2013] Fam 276, [2013] Fam Law 389, [2013] 1 FCR 371, [2012] WLR(D) 351, [2013] 1 FLR 1095, [2013] 1 FAM 276
  • Appeal from – Gohil 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 . .
    [2014] EWCA Civ 274, [2014] WLR(D) 126, [2014] 3 WLR 717, [2014] 2 FCR 455, [2014] Fam Law 1103, [2015] Fam 89, [2015] 1 FLR 178
  • At FD – Gohil 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 . .
    [2015] UKSC 61, [2015] 2 FLR 1289, [2016] 1 All ER 685, [2015] 3 FCR 497, [2016] AC 849, [2015] 3 WLR 1085, [2015] WLR(D) 407, [2015] Fam Law 1459, UKSC 2014/0200

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.591293