Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: S v S (Non-Disclosure) [2013] EWHC 991 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:05 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-s-v-s-non-disclosure-2013-ewhc-991-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 9, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 102449

(Family Division, Sir Hugh Bennett, 29 April 2013)

The husband and wife were married for 17 years and had three children together. When the marriage broke down financial proceedings were settled leaving the wife with £10.355m of cash and properties and the husband with £5.64m of cash and properties. In addition the husband agreed to pay the wife a deferred lump sum once his shares in the company were sold. The draft order was approved by the judge but was never sealed.

The wife now sought to reopen financial remedy proceedings on the basis of the husband's material non-disclosure. While there was no dispute about the 50/50 split of the matrimonial assets, the main issue had been the husband's shareholding in the company. The husband sought to retain his shareholding on the basis that following the separation the company shares constituted non-matrimonial assets. In the proceedings in 2012 he claimed to be readying the company for flotation on the stock exchange but claimed that this was something which could happen in 3 to 7 years' time.

Following the settlement the wife became aware that three bankers had been instructed to prepare an Initial Public Offering for 2013 on the NASDAQ. Suggested valuations were given of between £468m and £631m.

It was clear that the husband's evidence had been plainly misleading and he was planning an IPO during 2012. The entire emphasis in the company planning was for an IPO and not any other option contended by the husband. When placed against the documents now disclosed the husband's evidence could only be categorised as dishonest. The husband had chosen to suppress the documents now available in an attempt to lessen his exposure to the court's discretionary powers.

In assessing whether full disclosure would have impacted on the judge's approval of the award, it was now apparent that although much work had been done on preparation for the IPO, much work remained to be done. In such fluid circumstances the only course would have been to adjourn proceedings to wait and see what happened. As it happened an IPO had still not been affected and as the evidence stood there was still no imminent prospect of an IPO.

The wife's application was dismissed. Any order that would have been made following full disclosure would not have been substantially different from that contained in the unsealed order. The husband while guilty of non-disclosure, was not guilty of material non-disclosure. The previous order would be sealed.

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from