*** ----> Women get right to reopen divorce settlements after supreme court ruling | THE DAILY TRIBUNE | KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN

Women get right to reopen divorce settlements after supreme court ruling

Two ex-wives who say they are entitled to more money after separation have won their supreme court claims that will allow others to reopen their divorce settlements.

Alison Sharland, in her late 40s, and Varsha Gohil, in her early 50s, argued that their ex-husbands misled judges about how much they were worth.

Both women took their claims to the supreme court in London to establish that non-disclosure in divorce settlements requires a case to be re-examined. Their ex-husbands disagreed. 

Delivering judgment in the Sharland case, Lady Hale, deputy president of the supreme court, said: She had been deprived of her right to a full and fair hearing of her claims.

Alison Sharland, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, had accepted £10.35m in cash and properties from her ex-husband Charles in the settlement three years ago, justices were told. It later emerged that shares in his company AppSense were worth considerably more than previously revealed.

One estimate put the firm’s value at $1bn (£656m), although lawyers at the time told the court that it was worth between £31m and £47m.

Charles Sharland was found in an earlier case to have “laid a false trail by his dishonest evidence” and to have hidden the fact that he was considering floating the firm.

In the other divorce settlement case, Bhadresh Gohil was found by the appeal court an out-and-out rogue involved in financial criminality on an eye-watering scale. 

He was convicted of money laundering following their divorce, justices heard. Gohil and his former wife have three grown-up children who remain financially dependent on their mother, Varsha Gohil, from north London.

She had accepted £270,000 plus a car from her husband Bhadresh more than a decade ago. 

The court of appeal had previously ruled in Bhadresh Gohil’s favour, saying that because the courts were not allowed to use evidence from the husband’s criminal trial, held in open court but not released by the Crown Prosecution Service, they could not prove that he was being dishonest in the original proceedings. 

Neither woman has yet said how much they want, but both say their claims should be re-examined and all evidence now available considered. 

Story:The Guardian

Photograph:Peter Macdiarmid/LNP,  Nick Ansell/PA 

Most Read