W sought to re-open a sttlement of the financial arrangement on her divorce, saying that there had been substantial non-disclosure by H.
Held: ‘any order which would have been made if proper disclosure had taken place would not have been substantially different from the heads of agreement incorporated into the draft, unsealed order which I approved. Accordingly, notwithstanding that the husband is guilty of non-disclosure, in all the circumstances I conclude that the non-disclosure was not material.’
Sir Hugh Bennett
 EWHC 991 (Fam)
England and Wales
Cited – Bokor-Ingram v Bokor-Ingram CA 4-Mar-2009
W sought to re-open the financial settlement on her divorce. Within a few days of the order, H resigned and took on a new employment at a significant increase in pay. That had not been disclosed. . .
Cited – Gordon (formerly Stefanou) v Stefanou CA 2010
H and W first separated in 1996, with W petitioning for divorce in 2003 for 5-years’ separation. In 1999 H began a company which proved very successful. An ancillary relief order was made in 2007 but W now sought to set that order aside for a . .
Cited – Jenkins v Livesey (formerly Jenkins) HL 1985
The parties had negotiated through solicitors a compromise of ancillary relief claims on their divorce. They agreed that the house should be transferred to the wife in consideration of her release of all other financial claims. The wife however . .
Cited – Judge v Judge and others CA 19-Dec-2008
The wife appealed against an order refusing to set aside an earlier order for ancillary relief in her divorce proeedings, arguing that it had been made under a mistake. The sum available for division had had deducted an expected liabiliity to the . .
Cited – Walkden v Walkden CA 25-Jun-2009
W sought to plead as a Barder event the fact that certain shares had subsequently been sold by H at a substantially higher value than had been anticipated on the making of the financial relief order on the parties’ divorce. Alternatively, she . .
Cited – C v C FD 2012
The court considered the application of the test of materiality when a party gave disclosure in family proceedings. . .
At FD – Sharland v Sharland SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the impact of fraud upon a financial settlement agreed between divorcing parties where that agreement is later embodied in a court order? Does ‘fraud unravel all’, as is normally the case when agreements are embodied in court . .
Appeal from – Sharland v Sharland CA 10-Feb-2014
Appeal against the order of Sir Hugh Bennett dismissing the application of the appellant wife to resume the hearing of her claim for financial provision following her divorce from the respondent.
Held: (Briggs LJ dissenting) The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.509149