G v S

G v S

The application to set aside fails because, even if there was some non-disclosure or mistake regarding the company's refinancing, dividend payments, or valuation, these matters would not have led to a materially different order. The original judgment was based on the principle that the wife should not share in the future value or risk of the company, and the subsequent sale and increase in value were not unforeseen or unforeseeable events but rather natural developments. There was no bad faith or material concealment by the husband, and the dramatic change in value does not justify reopening the order under the Barder or Livesey principles.

Parties
Applicant: G (formerly S); Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief / Matrimonial Financial Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Final Ancillary Relief Order
Outcome
Application to set aside ancillary relief order dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Non Disclosure, Misrepresentation, Mistake, Barder Event, Finality of Litigation, Valuation of Company Assets, Clean Break
Family Law Ancillary Relief Non Disclosure Misrepresentation Mistake Barder Event Finality of Litigation Valuation of Company Assets +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G (formerly S)

Applicant

S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief / Matrimonial Financial Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Final Ancillary Relief Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ancillary relief order of September 2006 should be set aside for misrepresentation, non-disclosure, mistake, or a supervening Barder event
  2. 2 Whether the husband's evidence and disclosure regarding the value and liquidity of his company and related financial arrangements was materially misleading or incomplete
  3. 3 Whether subsequent sale of the company for a much higher value than anticipated invalidates the basis of the original order

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside fails because, even if there was some non-disclosure or mistake regarding the company's refinancing, dividend payments, or valuation, these matters would not have led to a materially different order. The original judgment was based on the principle that the wife should not share in the future value or risk of the company, and the subsequent sale and increase in value were not unforeseen or unforeseeable events but rather natural developments. There was no bad faith or material concealment by the husband, and the dramatic change in value does not justify reopening the order under the Barder or Livesey principles.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside ancillary relief order dismissed