Sharland v Sharland [2014] EWCA Civ 95 (10 February 2014)

Sharland v Sharland [2014] EWCA Civ 95 (10 February 2014)

The appeal was dismissed because, although the husband was guilty of deliberate and dishonest non-disclosure, the Court of Appeal majority held that the non-disclosure did not result in an order substantially different from what would have been made with full disclosure. The wife was not entitled to set aside the order simply because of the fraud; materiality to the outcome was required, and on the facts, the order would not have been substantially different.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 95
Parties
Petitioner/appellant: Alison Kate Sharland; Respondent/respondent: Charles Alan Sharland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Ancillary Relief) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority).
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Financial Provision on Divorce, Non Disclosure, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Consent Orders
Family Law Ancillary Relief Financial Provision on Divorce Non Disclosure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Consent Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Kate Sharland

Petitioner/appellant

Charles Alan Sharland

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Ancillary Relief) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a consent order for financial provision should be set aside due to fraudulent non-disclosure by the husband
  2. 2 Whether the non-disclosure was material to the outcome of the order
  3. 3 Whether the court should re-open the hearing for financial provision

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although the husband was guilty of deliberate and dishonest non-disclosure, the Court of Appeal majority held that the non-disclosure did not result in an order substantially different from what would have been made with full disclosure. The wife was not entitled to set aside the order simply because of the fraud; materiality to the outcome was required, and on the facts, the order would not have been substantially different.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority).

Orders

  • The wife's application to set aside the consent order for financial provision was dismissed.
  • No order for a rehearing of the financial provision claim.