The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favour of two women who say they were misled as to their ex-husbands’ financial situations and should have their divorce settlements reviewed because they received an unfair financial settlement than they deserved as a result.

Alison Sharland accepted £10m in her divorce at the end of a 17 year marriage with her husband who is the founder of the software firm AppSense where she agreed to a division of the couple’s assets. Under the settlement, the 48-year-old would also receive 30% of the proceeds of shares held by her husband in his company when he sold them. She later found out that the firm was worth more than she had been told (estimated to be in the region of £600 million). She also heard of her ex-husband’s plans to float the firm on the Stock Exchange. But when she took her case to the Court of Appeal she was told it was unlikely that she would have received a higher award even if Mr Sharland had been more honest about the value of the firm. Despite this decision, the court deemed her ex-husband’s evidence “seriously misleading”. When the case was heard by the Court of Appeal, it was held that it was unlikely that she would have received a higher award even if the ex-husband had been more honest about the value of the firm. Despite this decision, the court deemed Mr Sharland’s evidence to be “seriously misleading”.

Varsha Gohil accepted £270,000 as well as a car in a final financial settlement but in 2004, two years after the couple divorced, she discovered evidence that her ex-husband had not been truthful about his finances when he was convicted of fraud and money laundering and jailed for 10 years. At his criminal trial, evidence revealed that Mr Gohil had failed to disclose his true wealth during divorce proceedings. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that evidence from the Mr Gohil’s criminal proceedings could not be used to overturn the settlement, therefore Ms Gohil had no way to prove her claim.

Following Ms Sharland and Ms Gohil’s appeals, the Supreme Court found that the women could reopen their settlements, and get a court to look at it afresh.  The cases have both been sent back to the High Court for rehearings. These rulings could pave the way for many more people to seek to renegotiate their divorce settlements. The court went on to say that the Court of Appeal’s ruling had been a “rare aberration”.

In Ms Sharland’s hearing, Lady Hale said that Mr Sharland “had deceived the court” and Ms Sharland had been “deprived of a full and fair hearing” because of “her husband’s fraud,” and that the High Court judge “would not have made the order he did when he did had the truth been known.”

In Ms Gohil’s case, Lord Wilson declared that the Court of Appeal had taken an “erroneous approach to the admissibility of – so it appears – all the evidence”, and therefore, “its dismissal of her application cannot stand”. He went on to say that her “claim for further capital provision should therefore proceed.”

Ms Sharland said after the hearing, “I hope that their decision sends out a message to everyone going through a divorce. My legal battle has never been about the money, it has always been a matter of principle. I entered into an agreement with my estranged husband thinking that it was a fair one.”

Ms Gohil said: “There are absolutely no winners in divorce and more than a thought has to be given to the children of families locked in this type of litigation.”

Vicky Medd, head of the Family department at Ridley & Hall Solicitors said, “These decisions issued today are of huge importance.  Whilst these are big money cases, they do have repercussions in smaller money cases, and the Supreme Court has sent out a very clear message that misleading the court will not be tolerated.”

The full Supreme Court judgments for Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil are available online.