Jonathan Herring reveals a case that illustrates that cheats never prosper
In Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2015] All ER (D) 108 (Oct), Mr and Mrs Sharland had married in 1993 and separated in 2010. They had three children, including one who would require care from Mrs Sharland throughout his life. Mr Sharland was a highly successful businessman who had developed a company, which was his primary asset. In their financial negotiations the value of the company was the key issue of dispute between them. Both instructed experts to value the company, but they did so on the basis that, as Mr Sharland declared, there were no plans for an “initial public offering” (IPO) of the company.
An agreement was reached that Mrs Sharland was to receive 30% of the valuation of the company and it was presented to the court as the basis for a consent order. Sir Hugh Bennett approved the agreement after Mr Sharland confirmed that an IPO was not “on the cards today” and a draft consent order was
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
