The Court of Appeal had earlier upheld the Agreement despite his misrepresentation. The Supreme Court will latter look at the case again as it raises a point of law of general public importance.
In the Sharland case it emerged that Mr Sharland’s company might be worth significantly more than disclosed (reports suggested up to $1billion).
It was held by two of the three Court of Appeal judges that although Mr Sharland's non-disclosure had been deliberate and dishonest and described his conduct as deplorable, it proved not to be "material" to the outcome of the case. They accepted Mr Sharland's argument that Mrs Sharland would not have received a substantially different award had the court been in possession of the truth.
The Dissenting Judge disagreed saying that the husband's fraud undermined the whole agreement and he should not have been given the opportunity to bring his affairs into line with his original misrepresentation or to hold his wife to her agreement against her wishes. Lord Justice Briggs was concerned that as a matter of public policy the court's processes must be protected from fraud, and this was more important than economy and speed.
The Wife had entered an agreement in the belief that she was receiving approximately half of the value of the matrimonial assets which would have been a fair result. The Husband knew that the company was potentially worth many times the sum that he had led all to believe and that the shares could be realised much sooner than he had represented.
It surely cannot be stressed enough that where the financial resources of the parties are sufficient to meet the needs of both parties this must be checked against what has been described as "a yardstick of equality" as outlined in the case of White v White (2001) 1AC 596. Then later in Miller v Miller, MacFarlane v MacLane (2006) UKHL 24 the House of Lordsidentified three principles (or "strands") which justified the making of orders Needs ("generously interpreted"). Compensation for relationship-generated disadvantage. Sharing of the fruits of the marital or civil partnership.
It has been quoted in the Sharland case that "Dishonesty in any legal proceedings should not be tolerated; the family court should not be an exception."
This gives rise once more to the need for greater transparency and honesty at the outset in Family Proceedings involving division of assets between spouses and civil partners and continuing throughout each case.
*******
For further assistance and representation in relation to private family law matters please contact Jackie Jessiman at Woodfines Cambridge Office on 01223 411421 or email jjessiman@woodfines.co.uk
_____________________________________________