A hard lesson in honesty in family legal cases

It’s always important to be honest and disclose all relevant information and facts in any legal case. A recent decision in the Supreme Court demonstrates why, and how you can be seriously disadvantaged if you’re economical with the truth.

About the case
A couple, the Sharlands, married in 1993 and separated in 2010; they had three children together. The husband’s shareholding in his company was valued by experts, one acting for the wife and one for husband. Neither expert could agree on the value of the shares but the case proceeded on the basis that the company was not to be listed on the stock market.

The situation was different, however, and yet the husband allowed the case to proceed despite knowing that shares were to be offered to the public; he even gave evidence that this was the case.

The wife’s case relied on the husband’s false statements and the parties reached an agreement in respect of their financial matters. Just before the Court granted an Order to reflect the parties’ agreement, it became public knowledge that the husband had lied and that the company was in fact putting into place a public shares listing. The wife therefore asked the Court for a final hearing.

The Court’s decision
The Supreme Court found that the husband had been deliberately dishonest about the public share listing. They agreed to dismiss the parties’ agreement and the Court was to direct the former couple as to how to proceed.

Where financial matters between a couple going through a separation or divorce reach Court, both parties have a duty to disclose fully all relevant information. This duty is ongoing, which means that if a situation changes whilst the case is in progress, the parties must declare as such. If either party misleads the Court, this is dishonest and fraudulent.

The Court won’t dismiss an agreement like this routinely though. The Supreme Court in this case stated that:

“We will only [dismiss the agreement] where the absence of full and frank disclosure has led to the Court making an order substantially different from [that] which it would have made if [full] disclosure had taken place."

If the husband’s dishonesty had been trivial and would not have substantially altered the agreement reached, it is doubtful that the Court would have dismissed in the way it did.

An additional decision
Alongside the ‘Sharland’ case, the Court also heard the case of Mr & Mrs Gohil, a couple which had also separated. The ‘Gohil’ case decided that the Court could still make decisions in respect of a marriage, even after that marriage had dissolved. Couples are able to apply to Court to request that Orders are dismissed or to appeal against Orders which may have already been made.

How can the Court deal with dishonesty?
If a party in a Court case deliberately sets out to mislead the Court, this can be incredibly serious. It is a criminal offence, and the person may be imprisoned; for example, Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken have both been jailed for perjury.

Where it becomes apparent that a party has attempted to mislead the Court through, for example, forged documents, the Court will decide whether to continue or to dismiss the case in its entirety. However the Court behaves, it’s certainly not worth concealing vital information.

Our family and matrimonial specialist Gillian Lavelle is pleased to offer a free initial 30-minute appointment for all new cases.

To arrange your meeting, call 01942 206060 today.