The judge was deciding for the third time how the assets should be divided, in a long-running case where the initial order was set aside after it emerged the husband failed to disclose trust assets. The second order was later set aside after it emerged that he failed to disclose a sale of shares in his business worth £25m and potentially a further £75m.
Rather than start from scratch in the long-running case, the judge decided to follow the approach of Kingdon v Kingdon [2010] EWCA Civ 1251 and restrict his consideration only to the non-disclosed assets, leaving the rest of the award as it was. He made an additional award based on his assessment of the wife’s needs.
On appeal, at Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115, Lady Justice Macur noted ‘there continues to be a dearth of authority as to the fair disposal of financial claims when earlier orders have been set aside because of fraudulent non-disclosure’.
However, she held that, while the court retains a flexibility to adapt its approach to the individual case in circumstances involving fraudulent non-disclosure, the Kingdon approach was the wrong one in Goddard-Watts since it could not be confined to a single issue. She held the husband’s fraud ‘provides the “glass” through which to address the unnecessary delay in achieving finality of the wife’s overall claim’.
Therefore, the judge should have reconsidered the wife’s application completely.
Ros Bever, partner at Irwin Mitchell, who represented the wife, said: ‘It would have been unjust and would send entirely the wrong message to allow Mr Goddard-Watts to profit in light of his deliberate failure to disclose. For justice to be done the court has to look at the complete picture and Mrs Goddard-Watts deserves and is entitled to that.’
