25 April 2025

Smoke Without Fire? When Foreign Judgments Cloud Financial Disclosure

In VTY v GDB [2025] EWFC 110 (B), Recorder Rhys Taylor faced one of the more unusual and unsettling examples of non-disclosure in recent family law decisions. At the heart of the case was not just the usual dispute over hidden assets, but the involvement of litigation in a foreign court that appeared to undermine the very basis of the English proceedings.

The result is a fascinating insight into the limits of judicial intervention when non-disclosure borders on litigation fraud but doesn't quite cross the evidential line.

The Background: "The Farm" and a Foreign Twist

During the original financial remedy proceedings, the husband (H) agreed that a valuable property—referred to as The Farm—was held on trust for him. It was included in the matrimonial asset base.

But post-settlement, H engaged in litigation in a foreign jurisdiction (Country X) that purported to challenge this very assumption. The result? A judgment from a court abroad that he attempted to use to say, effectively, “I no longer own that asset.”

The wife (W), understandably, argued this was a case of deliberate material non-disclosure—that the foreign litigation had been manipulated, or even manufactured, to create a paper trail separating H from his declared asset.

The Suspicion — But Not the Finding

Recorder Taylor was clearly sceptical. The judgment references:

  • Procedural irregularities in the foreign case;
  • The appearance that the husband may have been controlling both sides of the litigation;
  • An absence of proper notice to the wife;
  • Timing that raised eyebrows, coinciding with enforcement activity in England.

And yet, at paragraph 119, the judge declined to go all the way:

“Whilst I recognise all of the well-made points... I am not prepared to say that the judgment of a foreign court should not be recognised on the grounds that it has been obtained by fraud. There are too many imponderables at play, notwithstanding my suspicions.”

This is the core of the legal tension: the English court clearly felt the foreign proceedings were at least questionable, but it stopped short of declaring them fraudulent. In family law, suspicion is not enough. Proof remains paramount—even where red flags abound.

Why This Matters

This case illustrates a rare but increasingly relevant challenge in modern family litigation: the use (or misuse) of foreign legal systems to cloud beneficial ownership or frustrate enforcement.

What makes VTY v GDB so valuable for practitioners is that it shows the court's:

  • Willingness to scrutinise foreign judgments, especially where they emerge post-order;
  • Careful adherence to the principle that fraud must be clearly established—not merely inferred;
  • Recognition of the strategic use of litigation abroad, even when it stops short of formal condemnation.

Practical Pointers for Lawyers

  • Be alert to developments abroad. If a party engages in litigation that appears to unwind or contradict earlier disclosures, question the timing and intent.
  • A foreign judgment is not immune to challenge—but overturning it on fraud grounds is a high bar.
  • Build the evidential picture carefully. Courts will not declare fraud lightly, even if they share your suspicions.
  • Even if the foreign judgment stands, the English court still has wide discretion to apportion assets as between the parties, particularly in ‘needs’ cases, as it did here.

Final Thought

VTY v GDB is a masterclass in judicial restraint. The court clearly saw through the smoke but resisted declaring a fire without hard proof. For family lawyers, the message is clear: suspicion alone is not enough—but it’s often the start of a story the court is willing to hear.

22 April 2025

Ignorance Isn’t Always Bliss: Shared Misunderstanding in Financial Disclosure

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.

19 March 2025

Non-Disclosure and No-Show: How Courts Respond in Financial Remedy Cases – Mahtani v Mahtani [2025] EWFC 35 (Fam)

Mahtani v Mahtani [2025] EWFC 35 (Fam) is a stark reminder of the serious consequences of non-attendance and non-disclosure in financial remedy proceedings. This case serves as yet another warning that attempting to evade scrutiny in divorce cases can lead to adverse inferences and financial penalties.

The Facts: A Husband’s Strategic Silence

In this case, the husband (H) repeatedly failed to comply with court orders for financial disclosure, refused to engage with proceedings, and ultimately did not attend the final hearing. Despite multiple opportunities to provide evidence, he remained uncooperative. The wife (W), on the other hand, had complied with her disclosure obligations and pursued a fair division of assets.

Faced with H’s blatant non-participation, the court had little choice but to proceed in his absence and determine a fair outcome based on the available evidence—most of which was provided by W.

Key Legal Issues: Non-Attendance and Non-Disclosure

  1. The Court’s Approach to Non-Disclosure
    • Non-disclosure remains one of the biggest obstacles in financial remedy cases, but courts have developed a clear approach: if a party refuses to disclose assets, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences.
    • The judgment in Mahtani v Mahtani aligns with earlier decisions, including Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482, confirming that non-disclosure does not prevent the court from making findings on asset values and appropriate distribution.
    • The burden of proof lies on the party alleging non-disclosure, but once a reasonable suspicion is raised, the non-disclosing party must disprove it—a burden H did not even attempt to meet.
  2. Non-Attendance: Proceeding in Absence
    • H’s non-attendance at the final hearing was not enough to delay proceedings. The court proceeded on the basis of the evidence before it, emphasising that parties cannot derail litigation by refusing to engage.
    • This echoes the approach in BG v BA [2015] EWFC 2, where Mostyn J held that “a party cannot frustrate the process by refusing to take part.”
  3. Adverse Inferences and Asset Estimation
    • Given H’s non-disclosure and refusal to engage, the court took a robust approach, estimating his assets at the upper end of W’s valuation evidence.
    • Courts have wide discretion to infer hidden assets if a party refuses to be transparent, as seen in Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and Thurrock v West [2012] EWCA Civ 1435.

The Judgment: A Cautionary Tale

  • W was awarded a significant share of the known assets, along with adverse cost consequences for H’s conduct.
  • The judgment reinforces that non-compliant parties will not be rewarded for obstructive behaviour—instead, courts will take a pragmatic approach and ensure that justice is done based on available information.

Practical Takeaways for Family Lawyers

  • Non-disclosure is a high-risk strategy—courts are prepared to draw negative inferences, often resulting in a more punitive financial settlement for the non-compliant party.
  • Non-attendance will not delay judgment—a party who refuses to engage cannot expect the court to wait indefinitely.
  • Practitioners should advise clients early on the duty of full and frank disclosure—failure to comply can lead to asset assumptions that may not be favourable.
  • Courts are willing to make robust findings—a lack of disclosure does not mean an absence of judgment.

Conclusion

Mahtani v Mahtani sends a clear message: financial remedy proceedings will not be held hostage by uncooperative litigants. Those who fail to engage do so at their peril—because the court will press ahead, and the outcome is unlikely to favour the non-disclosing party.

For family lawyers, this case reinforces the importance of advising clients on compliance and disclosure obligations. Strategic silence will not win the day—transparency and cooperation remain the best path to a fair outcome.

7 November 2024

Persistent Non-Compliance in Divorce – Truth, Lies, and Rolexes: Key Lessons from Williams v Williams [2024] EWFC 275

In Williams v Williams [2024] EWFC 275, the court contended with a husband who repeatedly flouted court orders and gave unreliable evidence, taking non-compliance to a new level with statements deemed “demonstrably untrue.” Andrew Williams’s actions, which included concealing assets and lying about possessions, provide a fascinating study in the consequences of non-disclosure in family law.

Case Background

Abigail Williams sought a fair financial remedy following her separation from Andrew, whose behaviour quickly raised red flags. Despite court orders, he failed to provide reliable information, refusing full disclosure of his assets, which spanned an array of private companies and overseas investments. Throughout the proceedings, he repeatedly breached disclosure obligations and failed to attend hearings, showing a disregard for both his spouse and the judicial process.

Courtroom Drama: The Rolex “Wind-Up”

The court’s assessment of Andrew’s honesty reached a peak when he claimed, while testifying, that he was wearing a cheap Casio watch instead of the gold Rolex visible on his wrist. The next day, he admitted this was untrue, calling it a “wind-up.” This episode encapsulated his approach to the proceedings, and Moor J ultimately concluded that Andrew was “entirely dishonest” and had intentionally tried to “pull the wool” over the court’s eyes. Such blatant dishonesty significantly impacted the court’s ruling, reinforcing how detrimental non-compliance and lack of transparency can be in financial remedy cases.

Key Legal Takeaways

  1. The Importance of Full Disclosure:
    Under family law, parties are required to make a full and frank disclosure of their financial situations. Andrew’s failure to do so, coupled with his clear dishonesty, led the court to apply sanctions. Practitioners must remind clients that attempts to obscure financial reality, even in jest, will be detrimental to their case.
  2. Contempt of Court and Enforcement Measures:
    Andrew’s disregard for court orders led to findings of contempt. The court employed enforcement tools such as freezing orders and debt recovery actions, showcasing its commitment to protecting the integrity of proceedings. For clients and practitioners, this highlights the critical need for adherence to court orders, as failing to do so can lead to severe consequences.
  3. Complex Asset Structures and Valuation:
    Andrew’s assets, concealed within complex business structures, made valuations challenging. Practitioners should be aware that complex or hidden assets will prompt the court to take thorough investigative steps, such as ordering forensic accounting, and may lead to adverse inferences if information is incomplete.

Conclusion

Williams v Williams illustrates the dangers of dishonesty and non-compliance in financial remedy cases. Andrew’s behaviour not only affected his credibility but also led to substantial court-imposed penalties, underscoring the court’s intolerance for dishonesty in asset disclosure. Family law practitioners should note the court’s stance, as this case serves as a powerful reminder to clients of the importance of honesty and transparency in financial proceedings.

29 October 2024

When Can a Financial Remedy Order Be Successfully Appealed? Lessons from Dr. Ebenezer Adodo v. Geok Kheng Tan [2024] EWCA Civ 1288

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Dr. Adodo v. Tan [2024] EWCA Civ 1288 provides clarity on the conditions for successfully appealing financial remedy orders on the grounds of mistake or misrepresentation. This case underscores the legal principles of full and frank disclosure, the admission of new evidence on appeal, and the specific requirements for setting aside a final financial order due to material error.

Case Background

In this appeal, the husband argued that a significant error affected the final financial remedy order due to a misrepresentation regarding the wife’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) account in Singapore. Initially, the wife had represented that these funds were inaccessible until she reached the age of 65. However, it emerged that the funds were accessible upon the sale of her Singapore property, which could have made approximately £325,000 immediately available—a detail that was not disclosed during the original hearing.

The husband's appeal raised two key issues:

  1. Mistake: Did the initial ruling contain a material error due to incorrect information about the wife’s financial assets?
  2. Misrepresentation: Did the wife’s inaccurate portrayal of her CPF account constitute a misrepresentation that justified setting aside the order?

Legal Framework: Grounds for Appeal on Mistake or Misrepresentation

The Court of Appeal explored several critical legal principles relevant to setting aside a financial remedy order due to misrepresentation or mistake, as well as requirements for full disclosure. Below are key takeaways from this judgment.

  1. Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure: The decision reaffirms the principle that all parties in financial remedy proceedings must disclose all relevant financial resources. As outlined in Livesey v. Jenkins and reiterated by Lord Brandon, a court can only exercise its discretion lawfully and properly if provided with accurate, complete, and up-to-date information on each party's financial resources under Section 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. A failure to meet this duty may render a financial order substantially unfair and open to challenge.
  2. Materiality of Non-Disclosure: Following Sharland v. Sharland and Gohil v. Gohil, the court clarified that for a non-disclosure to justify setting aside an order, it must be “material.” This means the order would have been “substantially different” had the true facts been known. Not every minor omission or misstatement suffices for an appeal; the undisclosed information must be significant enough to affect the fairness of the outcome.
  3. Route of Appeal vs. Set-Aside Applications: Under Section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Family Procedure Rule 9.9A, a party can either appeal the decision or apply to the same court to set aside the order. The choice of approach depends on the circumstances, including whether issues of fact need resolution. In Adodo, the court considered an appeal appropriate due to the nature of the issues at hand, which involved assessing the original financial information presented.
  4. Burden of Proving Material Difference: In cases of non-fraudulent misrepresentation, the burden lies with the party challenging the order to show that the disclosure failure led to a materially different result. However, Lady Hale in Sharland noted that in cases of intentional misrepresentation, materiality is presumed, shifting the burden to the misrepresenting party to prove that the non-disclosed information would not have affected the order.
  5. Admission of New Evidence on Appeal: The appellate court has discretion to admit new evidence if it meets the Ladd v. Marshall test: (1) the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the time of the original hearing, (2) it would likely influence the case outcome, and (3) it is credible. In Adodo, the husband’s new evidence about the CPF account accessibility was relevant, as it showed that the financial information originally provided to the court was incomplete.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

  1. Full and Transparent Disclosure: Practitioners must advise clients to provide comprehensive financial disclosure from the outset, as even minor omissions can lead to costly appeals. Failure to disclose all material assets not only risks unfair judgments but can lead to future litigation to amend orders.
  2. Careful Assessment of Materiality in Appeals: Only substantial errors in disclosure or misrepresentations are likely to succeed on appeal. Lawyers should assess whether the non-disclosure truly affects the fairness of the original order before recommending an appeal.
  3. Selecting the Right Legal Route: Determining whether to appeal or apply to set aside a financial order is critical. Practitioners should evaluate the complexity of the factual issues, as appeals may be more suitable for cases involving straightforward materiality claims, while factually dense cases may benefit from set-aside applications in the same court.
  4. Meeting High Standards for New Evidence: Appeals based on new evidence are difficult to succeed. Lawyers must demonstrate that the evidence was not available during the original hearing, would likely affect the outcome, and is credible. Early, thorough financial investigations are essential to avoid complications later.

Conclusion

The Adodo v. Tan ruling clarifies that successful appeals based on mistake or misrepresentation in financial remedy cases must meet high standards of materiality and relevance. This case reinforces the duty of full and frank disclosure, highlighting that only substantial non-disclosures affecting the fairness of a financial order justify its reversal. For practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous preparation and transparency in financial remedy proceedings to ensure just outcomes.

 

Reading List for Mistake and Misrepresentation in Financial Remedy Orders

  1. Livesey v Jenkins [1985] AC 424
    • A foundational case on full and frank disclosure, Livesey establishes that parties must provide complete and accurate financial information for the court to exercise its discretion properly under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
  2. Sharland v Sharland [2016] AC 872
    • This case clarifies that misrepresentation or non-disclosure impacting the outcome of a financial remedy order can justify setting the order aside. It emphasises that materiality is presumed in cases involving fraud, shifting the burden of proof to the misrepresenting party.
  3. Gohil v Gohil [2015] AC 849
    • In Gohil, the Supreme Court discusses non-disclosure in financial remedy orders, emphasising that orders affected by substantial non-disclosure are susceptible to being set aside. This case also clarifies that the Ladd v Marshall test does not apply to setting aside orders based on non-disclosure.
  4. Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 FLR 28
    • This case discusses the use of Single Joint Experts (SJE) and the procedural standards required when challenging or seeking further expert evidence. While it focuses on SJE protocol, it underscores the importance of transparency and thoroughness in all evidence presented to the court.
  5. KG v LG [2015] EWFC 64
    • Here, the court reiterates that non-disclosure will only justify overturning an order if the omitted information would have led to a materially different outcome. It builds on the principles in Livesey, emphasising that minor or trivial omissions do not meet the threshold for setting aside.
  6. J v B (Family Law Arbitration: Award) [2016] 1 WLR 3319
    • This case reinforces that the party alleging non-disclosure must demonstrate that the omission would have influenced the court’s decision materially. The ruling also provides a clear example of applying the burden of proof in cases of alleged misrepresentation.
  7. Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
    • This seminal case sets out the test for admitting new evidence on appeal, relevant in cases where appeals are based on new information not presented in the original hearing. Although primarily applied in civil cases, it provides guidance on the standards for new evidence in financial remedy appeals.

These cases collectively shape the principles governing appeals based on mistake, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure. They offer essential insights into the rigorous standards applied by courts to maintain fairness and accuracy in financial remedy orders.

20 September 2024

A New Era for Financial Remedy Orders: Ma v Roux and the Power to Strike Out Applications

The case of Ma v Roux [2024] EWHC 1917 marks a pivotal shift in the handling of financial remedy orders, focusing on whether courts can strike out applications to set aside financial remedies in family law. This case involved an appeal on whether the court had the power to summarily dismiss or strike out an application to set aside a consent order based on alleged non-disclosure during financial remedy proceedings.

The Key Issue: Can Courts Strike Out Financial Remedy Set-Aside Applications?

Historically, courts have been reluctant to strike out applications in family law cases, particularly financial remedy applications, due to the need for courts to assess all circumstances under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. However, with the introduction of Rule 9.9A of the Family Procedure Rules (FPR), there is now a more structured approach to applications to set aside financial remedy orders.

In Ma v Roux, the husband argued that his ex-wife had received substantial financial support from her family that she did not disclose at the time of their financial remedy settlement. He sought to set aside the original consent order on the basis of non-disclosure. The wife sought to strike out this application, leading to the key question: can the court strike out such applications?

The Judgment: A New Test for Striking Out Applications

Mr Justice Francis ruled that courts do have the power to strike out or summarily dismiss applications to set aside financial remedy orders under FPR 9.9A. The judge determined that the court’s power to strike out is broader when dealing with applications to set aside financial remedies compared to applications for final financial orders. The key principles established in the judgment were:

  1. Application of FPR 9.9A and PD 9A: These provisions introduce a clearer framework for courts to follow when considering whether to set aside a financial remedy order. The court confirmed that Rule 9.9A permits the court to strike out an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success.
  2. Real Prospects of Success: In determining whether to strike out an application, the court can consider whether the application has a realistic chance of success. This is a significant departure from the approach in cases like Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14, where courts were more limited in dismissing applications outright.
  3. Case Management Powers: Courts retain wide case management powers under PD 9A, para 13.8, which includes the ability to summarily dismiss applications that are clearly unfounded or have no reasonable prospect of succeeding. The judge emphasised that this power must be exercised carefully, balancing the need for fairness against the goal of avoiding unnecessary litigation.

Why This Case is of Interest

The ruling in Ma v Roux is particularly important for several reasons:

  1. Streamlining Financial Remedy Proceedings: The ability to strike out applications that are unlikely to succeed helps reduce the burden on courts and litigants. It discourages unmeritorious claims from clogging up the system, making financial remedy cases more efficient.
  2. Impact of Non-Disclosure Claims: This case sheds light on how courts approach non-disclosure allegations post-settlement. While non-disclosure is a serious issue, the case illustrates that not every allegation will warrant a full rehearing of the financial remedy application.
  3. The Evolution of Family Law: Ma v Roux demonstrates a shift in family law towards more active case management. The decision balances the protection of parties’ rights to a fair hearing with the need to prevent misuse of court resources.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

  1. Power to Strike Out: Practitioners should be aware that the court now has a clear ability to strike out unmeritorious applications to set aside financial remedies. This can help manage clients’ expectations when considering whether to challenge a settlement.
  2. Burden of Proof in Non-Disclosure: Allegations of non-disclosure must be supported by evidence that shows the outcome of the financial remedy would have been different if the disclosure had been made. Mere suspicion or disappointment after a settlement is insufficient.
  3. Strategic Use of Rule 9.9A: For practitioners representing clients who wish to set aside a financial remedy order, it is critical to assess the strength of the case early on. Weak claims may be dismissed summarily, leading to additional costs and wasted time.
  4. Case Management Flexibility: Family law practitioners should take note of the increased flexibility courts now have in managing financial remedy cases. Applications to set aside a financial remedy order will be scrutinised closely, and the court will not hesitate to strike out applications that are unlikely to succeed.

Conclusion

The decision in Ma v Roux reinforces the courts' commitment to efficiency in financial remedy cases while ensuring that applications with merit are fully considered. It highlights the importance of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings and serves as a reminder to practitioners about the evolving landscape of family law. With the power to strike out now clarified, family law cases may see a reduction in frivolous or vexatious applications, streamlining the resolution of financial disputes post-divorce.

This judgment is set to impact how financial remedy cases are handled, offering new strategies for both challenging and defending financial remedy orders in family law.

york-skyline-color
york-skyline-color
york-skyline-color

Get in touch for your free consultation

James-Thornton-Family-Law_white

Where innovation meets excellence

Our mission is clear: to redefine the standards of legal representation by seamlessly integrating unparalleled expertise with cutting-edge innovation.

01904 373 111
info@jamesthorntonfamilylaw.co.uk

York Office

Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane, York, YO1 8SU

Appointment only

James Thornton Family Law Limited (trading as James Thornton Family Law) is a Company, registered in England and Wales, with Company Number 15610140. Our Registered Office is Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane, York, YO1 8SU. Director: James Thornton. We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA number 8007901, and subject to the SRA Standards and Regulations which can be accessed at www.sra.org.uk

Privacy Notice  |  Complaints  |  Terms of Business

Facebook
X (Twitter)
Instagram

©2024 James Thornton Family Law Limited