Key Facts
- •Julia and James Goddard-Watts divorced in 2010, with a consent order for financial relief.
- •James subsequently misrepresented his assets and failed to disclose significant capital accumulations on two separate occasions.
- •The 2010 and subsequent financial relief orders were set aside due to James's fraudulent non-disclosure.
- •The appeal concerns the third determination of Julia's financial relief claims in 2022, where the judge used the 'Kingdon approach'.
- •The case involves a complex history of litigation spanning twelve years, with multiple hearings and judgments.
- •The central dispute revolves around the valuation and distribution of James's shares in CBA, a company he partly owns.
- •James's fraudulent non-disclosure significantly impacted the valuation of CBA shares and the overall fairness of the financial settlements.
Legal Principles
Courts have "enormous flexibility" in determining financial claims in cases of non-disclosure, and may not always need a complete rehearing.
Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60
In cases of material non-disclosure, the court may choose to repair the defect in the order without setting aside the whole order.
Kingdon v Kingdon [2010] EWCA 1409
A party seeking to set aside a judgment on the basis of fraud is not required to show that the fraud could not with reasonable diligence have been uncovered in advance of the hearing.
Takhar v Gracefield Developments [2019] UKSC 13
The court must consider all section 25 factors of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 when determining financial relief claims.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25
Conduct can be a magnifying factor when considering a party's position under the other subsections and criteria of section 25.
H v H [2006] 1 FLR 990
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The judge erred in adopting the Kingdon approach because the husband's fraudulent conduct was so far-reaching that it required a complete reassessment of the wife's claim. The wife was entitled to have her application considered in toto and in real time.
The husband's application to admit fresh evidence was refused.
This issue should be addressed at the restored hearing.
The wife's claim for a specific financial award was not determined.
This was deemed inappropriate for the Court of Appeal to decide summarily; it should be addressed at the restored hearing.