An Indian-origin solicitor’s ex-wife won a landmark ruling in the UK Supreme Court today, over what she had claimed was an “unfair” divorce settlement.
Varsha Gohil, 50, along with another ex-wife, Alison Sharland, had argued in a joint case that their ex-husbands misled judges about how much they were worth and they should get more money.
Britain’s top court agreed that their claims must be re-assessed by the High Court, where the decision on the final divorce settlement will now be made.
“There are absolutely no winners in divorce and more than a thought has to be given to the children of families locked in this type of litigation. The price they pay is a very heavy one.
“The emotional strain of it is huge on everyone, the drain in financial resources is enormous and none of it serves the family,” London-based Gohil said.
Gohil had agreed to receive 270,000 pounds and a car in her 2004 divorce settlement against her ex-husband, Bhadresh Gohil.
In 2010, Bhadresh was convicted of money laundering sums of up to 37 million pounds and jailed for 10 years. He helped a Nigerian politician steal a reported 50 million pounds from the oil-rich region he governed.
It was at his criminal trial, evidence said he had failed to disclose his true wealth in divorce proceedings.
Sharland accepted a 10.3 million pounds payout three years ago before she discovered that her husband’s company, AppSense, was considering flotation on the stock market and had been valued at nearly a billion dollars (620 million pounds).
In both cases, lower courts ruled the men were dishonest, but did not make them increase the payouts to their former wives or suggest a new hearing.
“The respondent failed to discharge his duty to make full and frank disclosure,” Lord Wilson said in reference to Gohil’s case.
Ros Bever from the law firm Irwin Mitchell, a specialist family and divorce lawyer representing both women, said courts had “turned a blind eye” to spouses, who conceal assets and mislead court for too long.
“To both women these cases are about a matter of principle and justice. This is yet another case in which an unfair settlement has been agreed because of one party being dishonest and not sharing all the details of their wealth to the courts,” she said.
The hearing, before seven justices at the Supreme Court in London, sets a legal precedent on whether non-disclosure entitles a claimant to reinstate a concluded divorce trial.
