I recently saw a Court of Appeal case, in which the husband agreed a financial settlement with his wife during divorce, but later it was discovered that he had told some considerable untruths regarding the status of his company during those negotiations, which meant that his financial picture was less than accurate.
The wife took the matter to the Court of Appeal, but the appeal Judges voted, two to one, that although the husband was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, the wife did not deserve a greater share of the marital pot because the dishonesty did not impact how much she should have received anyway.
The dissenting Judge decided that the “fraudulent” behaviour had undermined the entire agreement and, therefore, it should be set aside.
The wife has intimated that she will appeal and it seems that the matter will go to the Supreme Court.
The obvious question I ask is:
Why would a husband misrepresent himself in a court of law if he did not believe that there was a financial benefit to him of doing so?
And, above all, why wouldn’t anyone in the same position as the husband now give it a try?