In an ultra-high net worth divorce, the stakes are rarely confined to what can be seen on a balance sheet. Wealth spreads across jurisdictions in layered structures of trusts, business interests and illiquid holdings, and the question of what has actually been disclosed, and what has not, can define the outcome of proceedings for years, even decades, to come.
A string of recent court decisions has reinforced a principle that has been settled in English family law for generations: every divorcing spouse carries an identical duty of full and frank financial disclosure, whatever their wealth, wherever their assets sit. Complexity, advisers are being reminded, is not an excuse for concealment.
What the Courts Are Finding in Ultra-High Net Worth Divorce Cases
In the recent case of MK v SK, Mr Justice Peel examined allegations that a husband had failed to disclose assets held within a trust structure. The court agreed with the wife’s position, concluding that the husband had concealed wealth and that he enjoyed access to undisclosed assets, whether through a trust, some other structure, or via individuals holding assets on his behalf.
The ruling matters because of what it signals about judicial approach. Courts do not stop at formal legal title. They look through the structure to the reality of a party’s access to wealth, and that scrutiny extends to informal arrangements, family offices and trustee relationships that may not, on their face, appear to form part of the matrimonial picture.
For Hughes Fowler Carruthers, the message to ultra-wealthy individuals and their advisers is direct: strong governance, clear documentation and an honest anticipation of future disclosure requirements are not optional extras. They are the foundation on which any robust wealth structure must rest.
Prenuptial Agreements: Disclosure Requirements That Go Beyond the Divorce Itself
Last year, the case of Helliwell v Entwistle drew attention to a dimension of disclosure that is sometimes underestimated: the prenuptial agreement. The parties had been married for three years, having entered a prenup in which both stated they had fully and frankly disclosed their financial resources and liabilities. The wife had not. She failed to disclose assets amounting to 73% of her wealth, including business assets and a 50% interest in property.
The Court of Appeal found that the failure was deliberate and returned the case to the High Court to assess the husband’s needs afresh. The implications reach well beyond this one marriage. They confirm that non-disclosure is not a gendered issue, and that the duty of accuracy applies at the moment of signing a prenup just as firmly as it does during divorce proceedings themselves.
Prenuptial disclosure is often lighter than the disclosure required on divorce, typically provided as a schedule or summary document rather than a full financial picture. When that summary falls short, and is accompanied by an assertion that it is complete, the protection the agreement was meant to provide may be entirely undermined. As pre and postnuptial agreements become more common, this tension between high-level disclosure and the duty of accuracy is likely to surface again.
The Long Shadow of Gohill and Sharland
These recent decisions build on landmark rulings from roughly a decade ago that reshaped how seriously English courts treat financial concealment in divorce. In Gohill, decided by the Supreme Court in 2015, Mrs Gohill succeeded in persuading the court to set aside a settlement order made eleven years earlier, after evidence emerged of her former husband’s concealed wealth and money-laundering activity. Mr Gohill had, in the meantime, been sentenced to ten years in prison.
The final determination of Mrs Gohill’s financial claims did not occur until May 2025, some twenty years after the separation, when the court was at last able to establish which assets were matrimonial property and untouched by her former husband’s criminal conduct. She received the entirety of the identified untainted assets. The case stands as a reminder that settlements muddied by material non-disclosure can be reopened long after they were considered final.
At the same time, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle in Sharland. A successful software entrepreneur, Mr Sharland had misrepresented the value of his shareholding in his software business. Even where the precise impact of the non-disclosure on the financial outcome was difficult to quantify, that uncertainty did not protect the original order. The court was explicit: a dishonest spouse cannot benefit from the uncertainty they create.
The Challenge for the Financially Weaker Spouse
When the court’s focus falls on the wealthier party’s concealment, it is easy to overlook the position of the spouse on the other side of the table. Most are not forensic accountants. Even those who are commercially sophisticated may have little visibility into the structure of a family’s wealth, particularly in longer marriages where financial expertise has, almost by default, become concentrated in one spouse’s hands.
Allegations of non-disclosure frequently arise at the very outset of proceedings, before any evidence has emerged to support them. A spouse arriving at an initial meeting carrying deep mistrust and fears about hidden assets is a familiar picture in this area of law. The role of their advisers at that early stage is not simply to review what has been disclosed. It is to challenge, probe and rigorously identify what may be missing.
In the words Sir Walter Scott wrote in 1808, ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.’ More than two centuries on, the family courts are still unpicking those webs, and the financial and reputational costs of being caught in one have rarely been higher.