Gohil (Appellant) v Gohil (Respondent) - [2015] UKSC 61

Michaelmas Term

[2015] UKSC 61

On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 274

JUDGMENT

Gohil (Appellant) v Gohil (Respondent)

before

Lord Neuberger, President

Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Lord Hodge

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

14 October 2015

Heard on 8, 9 and 10 June 2015

Appellant (Gohil) Respondent (Gohil)
Sally Harrison QC James Turner QC

Samantha Hillas George Gordon

(Instructed by Irwin

(Instructed by Duncan

Mitchell LLP) Lewis Solicitors)

LORD WILSON: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke,

Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge agree)

Question

1. Do the principles referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1

WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse’s application to set

aside a financial order in divorce proceedings on the ground of a fraudulent non- disclosure of resources on the part of the other spouse? The trial judge cast his judgment on two alternative grounds and in his analysis of one ground he identified a particular relevance for the principles propounded in the Ladd case. It is now accepted that, in so holding, he was wrong and that the Court of Appeal was right so to declare. But, when so declaring, the Court of Appeal purported to identify a different relevance for the principles propounded in the Ladd case to the determination of an application to set aside. The main point of general importance which generates this further appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that those principles have any relevance to such a determination.

Introduction

Mrs Gohil (whom I will call “the wife” notwithstanding that she was divorced

from Mr Gohil, “the husband”, in 2004) appeals against an order of the Court of

Appeal dated 13 March 2014. By a judgment delivered by McFarlane LJ, with which Arden and Pitchford LJJ agreed, the Court of Appeal then explained its decision to set aside an order made by Moylan J on 25 September 2012, [2012] EWHC 2897 (Fam); the judgments of the Court of Appeal are numbered [2014] EWCA Civ 274 and it is clear that a decision was made to report them at the highest level of authority, namely as Gohil v Gohil (No 2) [2015] Fam 89. The order of Moylan J had been to set aside part of a financial order which, by consent, Baron J had made against the husband in favour of the wife on 30 April 2004, namely the part by which

she had dismissed all the wife’s remaining claims against him for capital provision.

Moylan J had proceeded to order that her claims be listed for further directions to be given in aid of their ultimate determination. The effect of the order of the Court of Appeal was therefore to prevent the wife from asking the court to revisit the level of capital provision made by the husband for her under the order dated…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gohil (Appellant) v Gohil (Respondent) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] UKSC 61
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Gohil v Gohil, the Supreme Court considered the appeal of Mrs Gohil against an order of the Court of Appeal, which had set aside a financial order made in divorce proceedings on the grounds of the husband's alleged fraudulent non-disclosure of resources. The central issue was whether the principles for the admissibility of fresh evidence in appeals, as outlined in Ladd v Marshall, applied to a spouse's application to set aside a financial order due to non-disclosure. The Supreme Court concluded that these principles did not apply, as the focus of such applications is on the duty to make full and frank disclosure rather than the admissibility of evidence. The court reinstated the original order, allowing Mrs Gohil's claim for further capital provision to proceed, based on the admissible evidence that the husband had indeed made a material non-disclosure of his assets in 2004. The court also highlighted the need for clear procedural rules regarding the jurisdiction to set aside financial orders, noting the inappropriateness of the Court of Appeal as a forum for such inquiries.

Orders