Full and frank disclosure is the foundation of any financial settlement on divorce. When that duty is not met, the consequences can be far‑reaching and long‑lasting.
In Gohil v Gohil & Ors [2025] EWHC 3646 (Fam), the court dealt with what is likely to be one of the longest‑running financial remedy cases in England and Wales, stretching back to 2002.
What began as a routine divorce settlement later unravelled when it emerged that the husband had failed to disclose substantial assets and was subsequently convicted of money laundering offences. Assets in the region of £28m were frozen, held through corporate structures across multiple jurisdictions.
The wife successfully reopened the earlier settlement and, after years of litigation and multiple appeals, the court ultimately awarded her a share of the assets it found to be genuinely matrimonial and not the proceeds of crime.
Why does this matter?
This case is a stark reminder of four key points.
1. Full and frank disclosure is not optional
A financial order can be revisited years later if it was based on material non‑disclosure. Even where a case appears “final”, it may not be if the underlying information was wrong.
2. Criminal proceedings can reshape financial remedy cases
Here, the involvement of the Crown Prosecution Service and confiscation proceedings created competing claims over the same asset pool. The family court was required to consider what assets were available, what was “tainted”, and how those issues should be resolved.
3. Hidden wealth is rarely straightforward
The assets in this case were held through complex corporate structures across jurisdictions. This underlines the need for:
- forensic accounting
- third‑party disclosure
- an early enforcement strategy
where there are concerns about non‑disclosure.
4. These cases are rarely quick or proportionate
This litigation spanned over two decades, involved extensive evidence and multiple parties, and required repeated appeals. It is a clear example of how costly, time‑consuming and uncertain concealment disputes can become.
A practical takeaway
If you suspect assets have not been properly disclosed, the key questions are:
- are there credible inconsistencies between lifestyle and disclosed income?
- is there evidence of offshore structures, business interests or third‑party holdings?
- was disclosure properly tested at the time of settlement?
- what evidence can realistically be obtained now?
- is the likely benefit proportionate to the cost of reopening matters?
The court has wide powers to revisit settlements where there has been concealment. However, it will also expect a careful, evidence‑based approach.
The key message
This case is a powerful reminder that a financial settlement is only as reliable as the disclosure behind it.
For some, it demonstrates that it is possible to pursue hidden assets long after a divorce has concluded. For others, it highlights the importance of getting disclosure right the first time and taking early advice where there are concerns.
There is a real and obvious tension between ensuring finality in a divorce, versus absolute certainty on the extent and value of the assets. The recent case involved significant sums, and so the extended litigation was necessary and proportionate. However, there is a need to be commercial in cases involving more modest assets, as pursuing a potential non-discloser may end up costing more in time and money than could potentially be gained.
At Stevens & Bolton, we regularly advise on complex financial remedy cases involving business interests, offshore structures and allegations of non‑disclosure. Early investigation and a clear strategy can make a significant difference to outcome and cost.
