header-logo header-logo

23 October 2015
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Divorce

Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2015] All ER (D) 100 (Oct)

The Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal against an order setting aside an earlier order which had set aside part of a financial order which, by consent, had been made against the husband in favour of the wife. It held, among other things, that the principles propounded in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745 had no relevance to the determination of an application to set aside a financial order on the ground of fraudulent non-disclosure.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson adds top property litigation Partner in record real estate expansion

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher expands Personal Injury team with impressive partner from Stewarts

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Global firm strengthens insurance practice with appointment of partner

NEWS
Should every solicitor found to have acted dishonestly face automatic striking off? The answer, argues John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke LLP in NLJ this week, is no 
Winning an arbitral award against a state is one thing; enforcing it is another
Can government success in court tell us whether the rule of law is healthy? 
Poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses can trigger litigation before the real dispute is even addressed
As cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, family lawyers are increasingly confronting the challenges it creates on divorce
back-to-top-scroll