The 2026 decision in De la Sala and Copinger-Symes underscores the importance of financial transparency in divorce financial remedy proceedings. Cases we have discussed before, including Standish v Standish (2025), show that certain assets might not come into the final reckoning. But both spouses must still disclose all their assets on Form E.
For the avoidance of doubt, this disclosure requirement includes assets a spouse anticipates receiving in the future like an inheritance and assets a spouse might view as ‘non-matrimonial’. It is for the courts – not the divorcing spouses – to decide how assets should be divided. Where assets are not disclosed, any order may be challenged by a dissatisfied spouse in the future. This principle of full disclosure applies equally to need-based awards and non needs-based cases.
What Happened in the Copinger-Symes Case?
The husband and the wife married in 1998 and separated in 2017. The wife is a member of the de la Sala shipping dynasty and both she and the husband became central figures in the family’s international business. Since 2017 the wife became seriously estranged from her parents and siblings. In fact, her parents decided to completely cut off all financial support. At the same time the wife’s family developed a close, positive relationship with her husband. As we’ll see this had huge repercussions for the subsequent divorce settlement.
The financial remedy proceedings started in September 2017 and ended with a consent order dated 4 March 2022. Briefly, the wife agreed to pay the husband a lump sum of £850,000 and also pay school fees. Otherwise there was an effective clean break. Notably the wife indicated that she had no doubt her parents would ‘handsomely repay’ her ex-husband for his loyalty to them once the financial proceedings were dispensed with.
She wasn’t wrong.
The wife failed to pay the lump sum or the school fees as stipulated in the draft consent order. The husband then took enforcement action. As part of these proceedings the parties were required to make further financial disclosure. This process revealed that, since the end of the financial remedy proceedings, the husband had become extremely wealthy. He had been gifted more than $30 million by his wife’s family.
Should an expected gift be disclosed?
On discovering the multi-million dollar gift, the wife sought to overturn the original financial order arguing that the husband was guilty of material non-disclosure. At the same time the family sought to recover the gift. They indicated that, if they had thought the wife would ever have benefitted from it, they would never have made it in the first place.
The lower court judge concluded that the husband was well aware that he would receive the substantial gift of money well before the consent order was agreed in March 2022 – possibly for up to a year before.
The husband then appealed.
The Court of Appeal Decision
The question for the Court of Appeal to decide boiled down to this: the husband had argued in the lower court his non-disclosure of the planned gift had made no difference to the negotiations that led to the consent order. His wife knew that he would receive substantial support from her parents. In these circumstances, should the consent order have been set aside?
The appeal court judge found that it should be and confirmed the lower court’s decision to set aside the financial order. The decision was made for a number of reasons, including:
- If the husband had disclosed the potential gift, it would have made a significant difference to the financial negotiations
- Even though the wife may have suspected a gift of such magnitude might be made, that did not exonerate the husband from compliance with the full financial disclosure obligations that exist in financial remedy proceedings
- The prospect of the husband receiving a multi-million dollar lump sum completely changed the landscape and nature of the case as presented in 2022
Comment
The facts of the case have been described as ‘extraordinary’ but the principles behind the Court of Appeal decision are highly relevant to couples involved in financial remedy proceedings.
It is not for those involved in litigation themselves to decide which assets or future assets should be disclosed. Nor is it for couples to earmark certain assets as matrimonial (and capable of being shared) or non-matrimonial (less likely to be divided). It’s for the courts to make this categorisation. Any attempt to leave particular assets off the Form E ultimately makes any order vulnerable to challenge in the future on the basis that it is fundamentally flawed.