The women, Varsha Gohil and Alison Sharland, claim that they were misled into accepting settlements based on false statements about how much their ex-partners were worth.

Ms Gohil, from North London, accepted a settlement of £270,000 and a car following a divorce from her husband Bhadresh in 2002. In a later case in 2010, when Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering, it was revealed that he had failed to disclose his true wealth in the previous divorce proceedings. The Court of Appeal ruled that the information about Mr Gohil’s finances could not be used to overturn the divorce settlement.

In Ms Sharland’s case, the Cheshire resident accepted a settlement of £10 million after a divorce from Charles Sharland in 2010. She reportedly believed this to be half of her ex-husband’s fortune, but the entrepreneur’s company was later valued by a financial publication at over £600 million. Mr Sharland claims this valuation is ‘pure conjecture’ and the Court of Appeal ruled that the misleading evidence would not have made a difference to the outcome of the settlement case.

Is the system broken?

Divorce experts, and particularly the lawyer representing the two women, Ros Bever from Irwin Mitchell, believe that the courts have turned a ‘blind eye’ to dishonesty in divorce proceedings and settlement agreements. Speaking of the case, Ms Bever said:

"To both women these cases are about a matter of principle and justice,"

"The current situation sends out completely the wrong message in what is and is not acceptable in terms of disclosing financial information."

It is, according to experts, “surprisingly easy” for people to lie about matters such as their wealth and finances during divorce proceedings, suggesting that there are worrying flaws in the current UK divorce system. Speaking to the BBC, divorce lawyer Mark Harper said:

"A surprising number of people do hide money. Because it's 50/50 of what can be found. If people lie, the court system can't function".

Far-reaching consequences

If the women are successful in having their settlements overturned, it could open the floodgates for other cases where one party feels that the other was dishonest about their finances. Those who feel they have been financially duped by their ex-partners could follow the same route, demanding that settlements be overturned and renegotiated. The question is – is it in the public’s interest for settlement cases to be reopened, potentially in their thousands? Just as importantly, how far could such cases realistically go back? If Ms Gohil and Ms Sharland are successful at the Supreme Court, we could see a huge influx of cases, some going back many years - possibly at great expense and disruption in the divorce courts.

For the very best professional advice on divorce, including settlement agreements and receiving what you are entitled to, contact the team at Tracey Miller, divorce and family law specialists.