What happens when an international couple in their mid-50s reach an agreement in relation to their finances on divorce which is made into an order of the English court, but then one of the parties receives a substantial financial gift from their ex-in-laws? That was the situation faced by Mr and Mrs Copinger-Symes [2024] EWFC 415 whose case is a reminder of how and when the court will set aside an order on the basis of material non-disclosure.
Mrs C-S came from a very wealthy family, whose millions had been generated by a shipping business operating in Hong Kong and Singapore and for which both wife and husband had worked during their 24-year marriage. Mrs C-S had become estranged from her family towards the end of the marriage, but curiously Mr C-S had remained close to his in-laws and for all practical purposes he had completely taken over and subsumed her position as a member of the family. It was suggested that whilst their son in law would benefit from the family's largess and wealth once the divorce proceedings were over as a reward for his loyalty, their daughter would not. The assets in the couples' names were between £3.1m and £6.1m and the court ordered in 2022 that Mrs C-S would retain at worst £2.4m (67%) and at best £5m (81%), depending partly upon whether she had to repay loans to her parents. Mr C-S was to use his best endeavors to secure a reconciliation between his former wife and her family and to persuade them to forgive the loan (not the sort of undertaking you will find in the standard court orders promoted by the court) and the final deal was predicated on the underlying assumption that Mrs C-S would continue to be paid a salary by the family company of c.£7,000 per month.
Unfortunately, relations soured further 2022 and both Mr and Mrs C-S sought enforcement proceedings against the other. It was only then discovered that Mr C-S had, since the final order, received gifts from his former in-laws of US$34.7m. This prompted Mrs C-S to issue proceedings to set aside the financial order on the grounds of material non-disclosure or an unforeseen event (also known as a Barder application). It transpired that Mrs C-S had been searching for expensive properties on the back of his expected windfall, during the divorce proceedings. This and other evidence drew the judge to conclude that there had been material non-disclosure. The 2022 order was set aside (which made the need to consider Barder principles redundant and this was a good thing for Mrs C-S as it was both foreseen and foreseeable that her family might make gifts to her ex-husband following their divorce). The case will now return to court with the focus on the extent to which Mrs C-S should receive more for her needs especially now that Mr C-S now has the means to reduce her loan to her parents.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
