Court hears businessman 'cheated' wife out of million in divorce settlement

"If all divorce cases would have to be re-opened every time a husband or wife lied about their circumstances, the court system would grind increasingly slow,” Lady Justice Macur.

Lady Justice Macur's comments were made in light of a well-publicised divorce settlement, which saw a wife lose an appeal to win back the millions of pounds her husband cheated her of.

Alison Sharman, the former wife of a multi-millionaire businessman lost her Appeal Court Bid for a bigger cut of the family's potential £150 million fortune. The decision was made despite three judges agreeing the woman was cheated by her 'dishonest' ex-husband.

46-year-old Ms Sharland claimed her former husband, software company entrepreneur Charlie Sharland, "conned” her into signing away her rightful share of the couple's joint assets. On divorce, the couple agreed the matrimonial assets should be split equally. Ms Sharland was informed their shares in the company were worth £7 million. However press reports suggested the company, of which Mr Sharland has a controlling interest, could be floated on the stock market for more than £460 million.

The couple lived in Wilmslow, Cheshire and built a substantial fortune together before they separated in 2010. Mr Sharland ran his computer software company from a business park near Warrington while Ms Sharland looked after their disabled son.

Patrick Chamberlayne QC, for Mrs Sharland, told the Court of Appeal the marriage had been equal and a divorce settlement should be equal to both parties.

"She was cheated into an agreement,” said Mr Chamerlayne. "All assets had been acquired during the course of the marriage and each party had made their full contribution.”

Ms Sharland made an appeal in December to shoot for a bigger share of the assets. Despite three top judges referring to Charlie Sharland as making "deplorable lies”, Alison Sharland was denied the chance to have a bigger slice of the family fortune.

So why exactly did Ms Sharland lose the appeal to a slice of funds she is effectively entitled to?

According to the Manchester Evening News, part way through the divorce proceedings in 2012 the Sharlands' agreed that Ms Sharland would get more of the liquid assets but would give up her claim to an equal share of the company. In return for £10.4 million in cash and property, Alison Sharland agreed to only take 30% of the proceeds of the sale of the shares when the company was eventually put on the market. One crucial element of the case is that the agreement was based on the value of shares being worth no more than £32 million. The agreement was also based on her husband's evidence that the company would not be put on the stock market until approximately five to seven years down the line. By this time, Alison Sharland's rights to a share in the proceeds of the sale would have decreased as it would have only been Mr Sharland putting the work into the business.

The court heard that Charlie Sharland had misled his ex-wife as he had been in the process of planning an initial public offering (IPO) (stock market launch) of the company.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick said that although Mr Sharland's conduct was "deliberate and dishonest”, there were good reasons for concluding that it had not left is ex-wife in a worse position.

Lady Justice Macur echoed these comments, stating:

"If all divorce cases would have to be re-opened every time a husband or wife lied about their circumstances, the court system would grind increasingly slow.”

The case highlights just how easy it is for spouses to lie about their circumstances in divorce hearings.

Lying in Family Court

From telling lies about income, assets and even fabrications of domestic violence and child abuse, surveys show the amount of lying in family courts has increased over the past decade. The epidemic of fabrications that go on in divorce settlements has been linked to the rising number of people with personality disorders. Disorders such as Antisocial Personality Disorder is characterised by deception, manipulation and disrespect for authority. Commonly referred to as "con artists”, such individuals are skilled at "breaking the rules.”

Why are spouses getting away with lying in the family court system?

Despite perjury being a criminal offence, punishable by jail or fine, as we saw with the case of Charlie Sharman, spouses are getting away telling lies for personal gain. The reasons that courts seem to be in effect, "turning a blind eye” on such fabrications has been linked to judges and lawyers not reporting each other for misconduct. Judges can 'get away with such bad behaviour' because lawyers don't want to get on a judge's bad side.

The issue of time

Then there is the issue of time. As Lady Justice Macur said herself, the court system would "grind increasingly slow” if divorce cases were re-opened to probe lying spouses. Put bluntly, family court judges simply don't have the time to truly determine that one party is lying.

As a family law firm in Liverpool, serving St Helens and the Wirral, Tracer Miller Family Law deals with over 300,000 separations a year in the UK. With years of experience dealing with divorce cases, we know anomalies can arise. If you are experiencing problems similar to Alison Sharman's, one of our commercially-aware experts will be able to offer you advice.