Assets in Excess of Disclosure

The former manager of the popular Australian bank INXS was recently successful in making a claim again her former husband and her own mother regarding a £27.6 million secret gift that was clearly demonstrated to have been promised payable to him following the conclusion of proceedings to decide the split of the marital assets. 

The case has been remitted back to the Court to revisit the final Order which has now been set aside. 

It is a clear warning shot for those litigants who fail to give full and honest disclosure of their resources in financial proceedings in divorce.

Many years ago I had a client who had received a cheque for a substantial sum of money in settlement of a dispute which he felt by not encashing but rather carrying around in his pocket meant it was not “his asset” and so did not need to be disclosed.  He was immediately informed of course that it was an asset in his hands and the mere fact he had chosen not to encash the cheque made out to him did not change that.  Of course in the case of Copinger-Symes v Copinger-Symes a more substantial sum was involved but the principle remains the same. 

Failure to give proper disclosure means that the Court are not aware of all the facts and neither is the other party.  If a case settles without going to Court the other party has not given informed consent to the settlement.  It is in effect a perfect example of the implementation of the legal principle “Fraud unravels all”.

If you wish to discuss any of these matters in more detail then please contact Lee Marston at Clough & Willis by emailing him at lee.marston@clough-willis.co.uk