When you are involved in financial remedy proceedings as part of your divorce, full disclosure of your financial assets is required. And this applies whether you reach a settlement during family mediation/other alternative dispute resolution process or whether your settlement results from full-blown court proceedings. It stands to reason: in negotiations, both parties need an accurate, up to date picture of the financial situation in order to agree any final settlement. Where there is no agreement, it follows that the court needs a similar picture to reach a decision.
The nature of financial disclosure in divorce proceedings is well established. But cases still reach court on a fairly regular basis where allegations of hiding assets are made. In this article we look at the long-running Goddard-Watts divorce proceedings involving the founder of the Screwfix chain of DIY stores. The case has become notorious in legal circles and in the media, not least because of how long the saga has continued. The couple separated in 2009. Following the latest Appeal Court decision from 2023 discussed here, they are gearing up for yet another hearing to decide financial matters. We also look at the 2025 case of Helliwell and Entwistle which demonstrates that the rules on non-disclosure can extend to agreements the spouses made before divorce such as prenuptial agreements.
Types of fraudulent non-disclosure in divorce cases
Fraudulent non-disclosure is where:
- One spouse intentionally conceals or withholds financial information relevant to the divorce proceedings; and
- Does so intending to deceive the other spouse or the court
By way of illustration here are some examples of fraudulent non-disclosure:
- Concealing assets – one spouse may hide bank accounts, property, investments, or other valuable assets to prevent them from being included in the division of matrimonial property
- Underreporting of income – a spouse might misrepresent their income or bonuses, either by failing to disclose certain sources of income or by undervaluing the actual income earned
- Undervaluing property – intentionally undervaluing the worth of property or assets in an attempt to minimise the amount to be divided during property division
- Fake expenses – inflating expenses or creating fictitious debts to reduce the apparent income available for property division
As we’ll see below by the time of the Court of Appeal hearing in Goddard Watts the husband’s fraudulent non-disclosure was generally accepted by the court.
Goddard Watts – The Background
Mr and Mrs Goddard-Watts separated in 2009 and divorced the following year. Financial matters were dealt with by a consent order. The wife was to receive £7.6m and the husband around £9m. Subsequently it transpired that the husband had failed to disclose the extent to which he was the beneficiary of two trusts. In 2015 the courts found that this was a material non-disclosure and ordered the consent order to be set aside and a new hearing to be held on financial matters.
At this new hearing the wife was awarded an increased amount to compensate her for the effect of the husband’s non-disclosure. But again it emerged that the husband hadn’t been forthright about his finances, in particular about how he was likely to benefit from the sale of his business.
As a result of this non-disclosure this second award was also set aside. A further hearing took place in January 2022. The wife sought a full reassessment of financial matters, arguing that the husband’s continued non-disclosure meant she was unable to get a fair hearing.
The judge disagreed and decided to take a narrower approach. Instead of looking at the entire financial award he limited his decision to the husband’s non-disclosure of the potential value of his shareholding in the business when it sold.
Appeal Court
Unhappy with this narrow assessment Mrs Goddard-Watts appealed and in February 2023 a judgment was handed down largely agreeing with her.
Essentially the Appeal Court judges said that while the narrower approach of the lower court judge might be appropriate in some circumstances, the court had an inherent discretion to adopt a wider approach if the case in hand warranted it. Remember two financial orders had already been set aside by the time the Court of Appeal reconsidered how to deal with the husband’s non-disclosure.
Here the adequacy or otherwise of the financial award could not be measured against the single issue of the husband’s non-disclosure of his potential benefit from the sale of the business. It was necessary for example, to consider other factors such as the wife’s continued valuable efforts to support the children of the marriage (all of whom were estranged from the father).
So, what was the effect of these findings?
The wife, tired of the ongoing litigation, asked the court to decide the financial issues there and then but the Appeal Court judges refused to do so. Reaching a final decision on financial matters required detailed scrutiny which the court couldn’t do within the time constraints of the current appeal. Nor would it be fair to the husband to deal with these matters summarily. The upshot was that another full hearing on financial matters would have to be arranged.
What are the penalties for fraudulent non-disclosure?
Goddard Watts shows how the courts can order a complete re-examination of financial matters in clear cases of fraudulent non-disclosure, and the earlier landmark cases of Sharland and Gohil (2015) show the courts will not hesitate to set aside financial orders reached on the basis of the deceit of one party. But a fraudulent spouse may face further adverse consequences. For example:
- At any new hearing the spouse who hid assets will have reduced credibility with the court, and the courts can make adverse assumptions as to the extent of undisclosed assets
- A fraudulent spouse may ultimately receive a smaller share of assets, have costs orders made against them and be ordered to pay the costs of their spouse
- Form E is a sworn statement. Being untruthful about your wealth on it amounts to a contempt of court which can lead to fines and, in extreme cases, imprisonment. The front page of the form contains the following stark warning:
You have a duty to the court to give a full, frank and clear disclosure of all your financial and other relevant circumstances. A failure to give full and accurate disclosure may result in any order the court makes being set aside. If you are found to have been deliberately untruthful, criminal proceedings may be brought against you for fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.
Although rare, there have been several recent cases of spouses being imprisoned for non-disclosure, including Ozturk v Ozturk (2025) where the husband was jailed for 28 days for repeatedly refusing to comply with disclosure orders.
Non-disclosure before divorce proceedings
It is also worth noting that courts will look at all the circumstances of the case when deciding whether there has been fraudulent non-disclosure that merits a re-examination of the financial order. In Helliwell and Entwistle (2025) for example, the court set aside an historical prenuptial agreement the parties had entered on the basis that the wife had been less than honest about the extent of her wealth in negotiations leading up to the signing of the agreement.
The wife had declared assets of £18m in the prenup but the true extent of her wealth was around £60 million. The Court of Appeal found that the wife’s non-disclosure of almost 70% of her assets was undoubtedly deliberate, and the inescapable conclusion was that her decision not to disclose these assets was fraudulent. Her deceit was exacerbated by the fact that the prenup stated that her solicitor had advised her formally to disclose all assets, and this had been communicated to the husband. The wife had also been warned that any non-disclosure could invalidate the agreement, she should disclose the full extent of her assets, and that a failure to do so could affect the legality of the prenuptial agreement. The Court of Appeal set the prenup aside and ordered that there should be a fresh assessment of the husband’s financial needs.
Comment
The Goddard Watts case may be extreme, but it nevertheless demonstrates the uncertainty, expense and risk associated with not fully disclosing assets in financial proceedings, not to mention in this case at least the barrage of negative press coverage linking the husband to ‘fraudulent non-disclosure’. All in all, Goddard Watts and the other cases we have mentioned show the heavy penalty for failing to follow the clear rules about disclosure of assets. It’s often the case that a non-disclosing spouse will end up worse off than of they had been fully transparent in the first place.