Sharland and Gohil – The Supreme Court has spoken.

The decisions of The Supreme Court in the cases of Sharland and Gohil today confirm the fundamental principle of British justice that parties entering into an agreement to compromise financial proceedings on divorce are entitled to full financial disclosure so they can make informed choices, according to Bradley Williams. If one party chooses to sweep important information under the carpet they cannot complain when the Court lists a further set of proceedings at that parties’ expense to get to bottom of the true position.

The Court made it clear that the parties have a duty to each other and to the Court to provide full and frank disclosure during family proceedings. Failure to do so can strike at the heart of any agreement reached and can render that agreement invalid. The Court emphasised that it retains jurisdiction over a marriage even after that marriage has been dissolved and can vary, suspend, rescind or revive any order made by it if circumstances later come to light.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of both Mrs Sharland and Mrs Gohil opening the way for the decisions in both divorce cases to be reviewed. Only time will tell whether this will lead to other similar cases coming before the Court for reappraisal.