In family law, few allegations carry more weight than material non-disclosure. When a party believes they were misled during financial remedy proceedings, the remedy they seek is serious: setting aside a final order. But what if no one really understood the full picture—not even the alleged “deceiver”?

The recent decision in Norman v Norman [2025] EWFC 107 (B) offers a compelling insight into this dilemma. The case challenges the usual narrative of one party hiding assets and the other being deceived. Instead, it presents a situation where both parties may have negotiated in good faith but with an incomplete understanding of key facts.

The Background

The wife applied to set aside a financial remedy consent order made in 2023, alleging that the husband had failed to disclose a beneficial interest in certain trust arrangements—referred to as the St Ives Trusts. She argued that this interest, once properly understood and quantified, revealed that the husband had significantly understated his financial resources at the time the consent order was agreed.

Her application followed a dispute the husband had with the trust shortly after the order was made, which resulted in him obtaining a substantial award of assets.

The Court’s View

District Judge Veal considered whether there had been material non-disclosure sufficient to justify setting aside the 2023 order. The judgment is notable for its rejection of a simplistic “concealer vs. victim” framing.

The court concluded that:

• At the time of the 2023 order, the husband did not have a clear or present entitlement under the trust and was engaged in a dispute about his position.
• The wife’s own evidence was inconsistent, including posts she made on online legal forums before the consent order was approved.
• The court could not be satisfied that either party fully understood the true nature or value of the husband’s potential trust interest at the time.

The result? The wife’s application was refused. There was no sufficient evidence of knowing non-disclosure, and no basis to overturn the order.

Why This Case Is Different

What sets this case apart is that it wasn’t about concealment—it was about mutual lack of clarity. The respondent may have had a latent entitlement, but it was tied up in unresolved legal questions. The applicant might have suspected there was more to the picture but chose not to explore it fully—or waited until the situation became more advantageous.

This poses a crucial question for family lawyers: ‘Can a party claim material non-disclosure when they themselves might have misunderstood, overlooked, or tolerated the ambiguity at the time of settlement?’

Practical Lessons for Practitioners

• Finality matters. Courts remain cautious about disturbing financial remedy orders, especially where both parties had legal advice and reached agreement through proper process.
• Disclosure is a two-way street. If your client has concerns, they must raise them before the order is made. Waiting to see how things turn out rarely plays well with the court.
• Timing is everything. Applications made only after a financial windfall—or the resolution of a dispute—will always attract scrutiny as to motive.
• Credibility is key. Inconsistent evidence, delayed action, and online commentary can seriously undermine an applicant’s case.

Conclusion

Norman v Norman is a subtle and significant reminder that not every post-order financial development justifies reopening a case. It shows that mutual misunderstanding doesn’t equate to deliberate deception, and that if both parties negotiated in the shadow of uncertainty, the court may still hold them to their bargain.

If you’re advising a client who believes their ex concealed assets, this case highlights a critical truth: to succeed, the claim must rest on more than hindsight and suspicion. It must be supported by evidence, timing, and credibility.