JL v NN
[2024] EWHC 1489 (Fam)
Dr Ebenezer Adodo v Geok Kheng Tan
28 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1288
Court of Appeal
A husband appealed a divorce financial settlement. His wife didn't tell the truth about her savings, making her seem poorer than she was. New evidence showed she had much more money than originally thought. The court agreed that this was important and sent the case back to be decided again with the correct information.
Key Facts
- •Husband appeals dismissal of his appeal against a final financial remedy order.
- •Wife failed to fully disclose assets and gave inaccurate evidence about her CPF account.
- •The wife's CPF account contained funds that were accessible sooner than she claimed.
- •Husband's appeal focuses on material misrepresentation and mistake.
- •New evidence was presented showing the wife's misrepresentation.
- •District Judge considered wife's CPF funds inaccessible until age 65, impacting the asset distribution.
- •The new evidence showed that the wife would receive approximately £325,000 upon sale of the Singapore apartment.
- •The Judge dismissed the appeal, refusing to admit the new evidence.
Legal Principles
Duty of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings.
Livesey; Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.25(2)(a); Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, s.31F(6); Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.9.9A(2)
Admission of new evidence on appeal; Ladd v Marshall test.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; CPR 52.21(2)(b); Zipvit Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] 1 WLR 5729; Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP and others [2024] 3 All ER 575
Circumstances in which a final financial remedy order can be set aside; materiality of non-disclosure or misrepresentation.
Sharland v Sharland [2016] AC 872; Livesey; Gohil v Gohil [2015] AC 849
Burden of proof regarding materiality in cases of innocent misrepresentation.
Sharland; discussion in sections 57 and 58
Outcomes
Husband's appeal allowed.
The wife's inaccurate evidence regarding her CPF account was material and led to a substantially different order than would have been made with accurate information. The Judge should have admitted the new evidence. The District Judge’s order was fundamentally undermined by the addition of funds available to the wife on the sale of the Singapore property.
District Judge's order set aside.
Material misrepresentation and mistake regarding the wife's CPF account; the new evidence demonstrating the true value of her resources would have significantly altered the financial remedy order.
Financial remedy application remitted for rehearing.
The case needs to be reheard based on the correct financial information.
Permission to appeal refused for Grounds 4 and 6.
These grounds are now academic given the rehearing.