Kirstie Gibson considers allegations of non-disclosure, misconduct & adverse inferences
In the majority of cases the courts will not have regard to the behaviour of the parties when determining financial issues, but there are exceptions. The court may draw adverse inferences where there has been material non-disclosure. The standard of proof is the normal civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. Litigation conduct may also be penalised in costs. The recent decision in US v SR [2014] EWHC 175 (Fam) highlights the potential implications of non-disclosure and also provides a useful reminder of the courts’ approach to the dissipation of assets.
Background
In US v SR both parties issued divorce proceedings and cross-applied for financial remedy orders. Each accused the other of failing to make full and frank financial disclosure and alleged that there were undisclosed assets.
The court found that for more than two years the husband had misled the court, the wife and her advisers, and his own legal team as to his true financial position. A month before
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
