Two ex-wives who say they are entitled to more money after separation have won supreme court claims that will allow disputed divorce settlements to be re-opened. Their claims will now go back to high court to be re-assessed.
Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohill had argued that they had been misled by their former spouses as to the true extent of their wealth when their divorce claims were settled.
Their cases had both been rejected by Britain’s Court of Appeal, but last Wednesday the Supreme Court backed the women, a decision which lawyers said could open the flood gates for others seeking to have divorce settlements renegotiated.
Posing for photos outside the court the women were smiling Gohil said: “I’m absolutely relieved by this judgment. I am relieved by the clarity and decisions by the judges.” Gohill accepted 270,000 pounds in 2004 after divorcing her ex-husband but later discovered he had hidden his true worth from her after he was charged with money-laundering offences.
Sharland said: “I am relieved and delighted that the supreme court judges have ruled in our favour. I hope that their decision sends out a message to everyone going through a divorce that they cannot lie in the family courts and get away with it.” She had accepted a deal in 2012 from her ex-husband Charles Sharland, the chairman and founder of IT firm AppSense, which amounted to 10 million pounds ($15.4 million) in property and cash if she agreed to accept 30 percent of proceeds from any sale of his shares in his company which he valued at between 50 to 75 million pounds. However, she then learned that he had been in discussions with investment bankers earlier in 2012 regarding plans to float AppSense, and an article in the Wall Street Journal suggested the company’s worth to be between $750 million and $1 billion.
If you need to know your matrimonial rights contact our team of experts and we will be happy to assist. You may even wish to take advantage of our one hour fixed fee appointments for £99.00 plus VAT 01639 885261 / email@example.com
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.