Non-Disclosure or Concealment of Assets

For high net worth individuals, the risk of non-disclosure in divorce proceedings is significant. Complex asset structures—such as offshore trusts, private companies, supercars, classic watches, fine art, and cryptocurrency—can be difficult to trace and value. If your ex-spouse failed to declare or deliberately undervalued such assets, you may have grounds to revisit the financial order.

The law requires full and frank disclosure of all assets. Concealing wealth, whether through hidden bank accounts, nominee arrangements, or undervaluing luxury items, undermines the fairness of the settlement. In Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, the Supreme Court set aside a financial order after it was revealed the husband had concealed the true value of his business, which was worth far more than disclosed.

To succeed, you must show that the non-disclosure was material—meaning it would have affected the outcome. Evidence might include newly discovered bank statements, trust documents, registration details for vehicles, or auction records for art and watches. The court will consider whether the omission was deliberate and whether the order would have been different had the assets been properly disclosed.

If you suspect assets were hidden, gather as much documentation as possible. The burden is on you to prove the concealment and its impact on the original order.

Fraud or Misrepresentation

Fraud goes beyond simple non-disclosure. It involves deliberate deception—such as falsifying asset values, forging documents, or misrepresenting ownership of high-value items like supercars, rare watches, or shares in private companies. In cases involving luxury assets, fraud might include transferring ownership to third parties or shell companies to disguise true ownership.

The Supreme Court in Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61 confirmed that a financial order can be set aside if it was obtained by fraud. In that case, the husband concealed substantial assets and income, leading to an unfair settlement. The court emphasised that evidence of deliberate dishonesty, such as forged trust documents or false statements about asset values, is grounds for revisiting the order.

To challenge an order on the basis of fraud, you must provide clear evidence of deception. This could include forensic accounting reports, proof of asset transfers, or documentation showing the true value or ownership of luxury items. The court will assess whether the fraud was material and whether it led to an unjust outcome.

If you discover new evidence—such as hidden ownership of a classic car collection, offshore accounts, or valuable jewellery—act promptly. The court expects applications to be made as soon as possible after the fraud comes to light.

Undue Pressure or Duress

Sometimes, a financial order is agreed under circumstances where one party feels coerced or threatened. For high net worth individuals, this can involve pressure to accept unfavourable terms due to threats of reputational harm, exposure of sensitive financial arrangements, or even intimidation about disclosing the existence of trusts, offshore holdings, or luxury assets.

The case of Hirani v Hirani [1982] Fam 81 demonstrates that a consent order may be set aside if it was made under undue influence or duress. The court will look at whether your agreement was truly voluntary, or if you were pressured into settling—perhaps by threats to reveal private business dealings, or to damage your standing in the community.

To succeed, you must show that the pressure was significant enough to override your free will, and that it affected the fairness of the order. Evidence might include correspondence, witness statements, or records of threats made during negotiations. The court will consider whether the terms would have been different if you had been free from undue pressure.

If you believe you were forced into an unfair settlement, gather any documentation or communications that show the nature and impact of the pressure. The court will need to see that your consent was not genuine and that the order should be revisited.

 Significant Change in Circumstances (Barder Event)

A Barder event is a major, unforeseen change that occurs soon after a financial order is made, rendering the original settlement unjust. For high net worth individuals, this could involve the sudden death of a party, a dramatic fall in the value of a business, or the forced sale of luxury assets such as supercars, art collections, or property due to external events.

The principle comes from Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening) [1988] AC 20, where the death of a spouse shortly after the order led the court to set aside the original settlement. The event must be both unforeseeable and have a fundamental impact on the fairness of the order. For example, if a business is unexpectedly liquidated or a trust is dissolved due to regulatory changes, the financial landscape may shift so drastically that the original division no longer reflects reality.

To succeed, you must show:

• The event was truly unforeseeable at the time of the order.

• It occurred shortly after the order was made.

• It has made the original order unjust or unworkable.

Evidence could include business liquidation notices, trust dissolution documents, or proof of asset loss. The court will assess whether the change is so significant that justice demands a fresh look at the financial arrangements.

Mistake or Error in the Original Order

Mistakes in financial orders can arise from miscalculations, misunderstanding the nature or value of complex assets, or errors in interpreting trust structures and international holdings. For high net worth individuals, this might involve incorrect valuations of private companies, luxury vehicles, rare watches, or offshore accounts. Sometimes, the court or parties may have relied on outdated or inaccurate information, leading to an unfair division.

In Thwaite v Thwaite [1982] Fam 1, the court varied an order due to a clear mistake in the original judgment. The key is to show that the error was significant and had a direct impact on the outcome. For example, if a classic car collection was valued at auction prices but later found to be worth much more, or if a trust’s assets were misunderstood, this could justify revisiting the order.

To challenge an order on the basis of mistake, you’ll need evidence such as updated valuations, expert reports, or documentation clarifying the true nature of the assets. The court will consider whether correcting the error would have led to a different result.

If you suspect a mistake affected your settlement, act promptly and gather all relevant documentation. The court will only intervene if the error is material and justice requires a fresh assessment.

How Caira can help:

If you suspect hidden assets, fraud, or errors in your settlement—whether it involves luxury cars, rare watches, offshore trusts, or complex business interests—Caira can help you make sense of the details.

You can upload documents, valuations, trust deeds, and correspondence for instant review. Caira will highlight key issues, summarise legal precedents, and suggest practical next steps, all grounded in current UK law. With privacy-first technology, your sensitive information remains confidential and secure.

Whether you need a draft letter to the court, a checklist for evidence, or a plain-English summary for family discussions, Caira is available 24/7. Take control of your financial future—try Caira’s free instant trial and see how easy it is to get clear, actionable support.