News

Sharland divorce case to be heard in Supreme Court in June 2015

  • October 01, 2014
  • By Hunters Law

Mrs Sharland was granted permission last month to take her divorce case to the Supreme Court after it was found that her husband misled both her and the High Court over the value of his company.

Mr and Mrs Sharland separated after 17 years of marriage. During the final hearing in the High Court the parties reached an agreement as to the division of their assets and the hearing was stopped and the agreement (and draft order) approved by the court.

Shortly afterwards (and before the order had been sealed) it emerged that, contrary to Mr Sharland’s evidence in court, he was preparing AppSense (a company in which he was a 2/3 shareholder) to float on the New York stock exchange, and that the company might be worth significantly more than the court and Mrs Sharland had been led to believe. In the end, the IPO never occurred.

Mrs Sharland made an urgent application to court not to progress the Order further and to resume the final hearing. The High Court judge found that, although Mr Sharland had lied to the court, the agreement should not be set aside because the court would not have made a substantially different award to the parties’ agreement if the truth had been known to the court.

Two of the three Court of Appeal judges upheld this decision. They agreed that Mr Sharland’s non-disclosure had been deliberate and dishonest but, because of the unusual circumstances of the case, his dishonesty had not resulted in significantly different outcome for the wife. Lord Justice Briggs took a difference view is his dissenting judgement and was concerned that it was contrary to the most basic principles of justice to uphold an agreement entered into on the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the case raises a point of law of general public importance and will hear her appeal against the decision of Court of Appeal.

The Family department at Hunters await the Supreme Court decision in June next year and are following all the developments.

For more information or advice in relation to legal issues on relationship breakdown please contact the partner at Hunters having responsibility for your legal matters, or (for new enquiries) please contact a partner in the Family team.

Related News

Feb 26, 2021
Richard Kershaw considers the implications of Mr Justice Cohen’s judgment in FRB v DRC (No 3) in Family Law Week
Feb 25, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines the impact of market volatility on divorce settlements in Finance Monthly
Feb 24, 2021
Polly Atkins examines whether one can charge an ex-spouse rent whilst waiting for their home to sell
Feb 19, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines whether you can re-open a divorce settlement due to Covid-19 in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary
Feb 02, 2021
Amy Scollan discusses divorce and luxury assets
Feb 01, 2021
Richard Kershaw discusses recent case where an unmarried couple have been ordered to share investment assets
Jan 18, 2021
Family Mediation Week 2021
Nov 19, 2020
Jay Patel and Polly Atkins examine family law in the lead up to Brexit in Family Law Week
Nov 09, 2020
Richard Kershaw discusses trusts on divorce and their role in financial planning strategies
Nov 05, 2020
Hunters recognised in The Times Best Law Firms 2021

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website 'hunterslawllp.com' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.