Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Sharland/Gohil - Comment from Resolution

Speaking following the Supreme Court judgment on Sharland v Sharland, Jo Edwards, chair of family law organisation Resolution, said:

"The success of Mrs Sharland and Mrs Gohil today is a clear indicator that anything less than full and frank disclosure of assets in divorce cases will not be tolerated by the courts, where this has an outcome on the order that the court would otherwise have made. This has significant implications for other cases where assets are suspected of having been concealed, and could see many other recently finalised cases being reopened.

“It is arguably in these cases, rather than the dealings of the multi-millionaire Sharlands, that the importance of this judgment lies. A few extra million pounds may be felt objectively to make little difference to Mrs Sharland's standard of living, but access to a share in concealed assets could make a huge difference in smaller money cases that are heard by judges every day. This is even more important where, on the face of it, the assets available are not enough to meet the parties’ needs.

"This is why Resolution is pushing for reform of how the assets and income on divorce are approached: we want to see a fairer, more transparent system.”

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.