Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Family analysis: Amy Royce-Greensill analyses a case involving non-disclosure, where the High Court considered the approach it should take when rehearing a financial claim following the final order being set aside.
Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts  EWHC 3000 (Fam)
The case was remitted to the High Court after the final order was set aside due to the husband’s non-disclosure regarding his interests in two trusts. At the rehearing, the court held it was fair to isolate the undisclosed resources and to deal only with those. The parties’ other resources were divided in a way that was fair and that remained fair. Excluding 35% of the trusts’ assets, which the court held were not marital assets, the wife would be entitled to the value of half the remaining assets (32.5%). This equated to a lump sum of £6.22m, which the court increased to £6.44m to reflect the fact that, first, if the truth had been known at the original proceedings, the wife would have received the sum earlier and secondly, she should not have been paid part of her original lump sum in instalments.
What was the background to the case?
The parties had divorced and a final order was made in 2010, under which the wife received the former matrimonial home and a lump sum of £4m (£1m of which was payable over eight years). In 2015, the final order was set aside due to the husband’s non-disclosure. The court setting aside the order found the husband had given a false presentation in respect of his interests in two trusts (see KG v LG (Appeal out of time; Material non-disclosure)  EWFC 64,  All ER (D) 338 (Jul)). The trusts were established in 2008 and held shares in a company set up by the husband’s brother. A significant proportion (35%) of the shares initially settled in the trusts was a direct contribution from the husband’s parents. The remainder represented the husband’s interest in his brother’s company.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234