The duty around hidden assets divorce disclosure has never been more sharply tested than in the current generation of ultra-high net worth cases, where wealth is spread across jurisdictions in layered structures of trusts, business interests and investment vehicles that can take years to unpick.
Sir Walter Scott wrote in 1808 that ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.’ More than two centuries on, the sentiment finds its most intricate expression in the family courts, where concealed wealth and allegations of non-disclosure have become a recurring and consequential theme in financially complex divorces.
The Duty Is Absolute, Whatever the Structure
Every divorcing spouse carries an identical legal duty: full and frank disclosure of their assets and resources during financial remedy proceedings. Wealth held offshore, through nominees, or in multi-layered trust arrangements offers no exemption. Recent court decisions have reinforced that point with clarity.
In MK v SK, Mr Justice Peel considered a wife’s allegations that her husband had concealed assets held within a trust structure. The court agreed, concluding that the husband had access to undisclosed wealth in a trust, some other structure, or held by individuals on his behalf. The ruling is a reminder that the court looks beyond formal title and legal ownership to the reality of a party’s financial position. For wealthy individuals and their advisers, as well as family offices and trustees, the case draws attention to the risks of informal arrangements and the value of strong governance, clear documentation and thinking ahead about future disclosure requirements.
Hidden Assets Divorce Disclosure Extends to Prenuptial Agreements
Last year, Helliwell v Entwistle demonstrated that the obligation is not confined to the divorce proceedings themselves. The parties had entered into a prenuptial agreement before a three-year marriage, each asserting that they had ‘fully and frankly’ disclosed their financial resources and liabilities. The wife had not. She had failed to disclose assets amounting to 73% of her total 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.
The implications stretch well beyond this couple. Prenuptial disclosure is often provided in summary form, a schedule or high-level document rather than the granular detail required during divorce proceedings. When that summary falls short and is accompanied by an assertion of completeness, the protection the agreement was intended to offer can be fatally undermined. With the growing use of pre and postnuptial agreements, the lesson is pointed: getting disclosure wrong before the marriage begins carries a cost that may only become apparent years later.
Settlements Can Be Reopened Long After the Ink Has Dried
The courts have shown a long memory when it comes to non-disclosure. In the Supreme Court case of Gohill in 2015, Mrs Gohill succeeded in setting 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 by then 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 couple’s separation, when the court was at last able to establish which assets were matrimonial property untainted by his criminal conduct. She received the entirety of the identified untainted assets.
At the same time, in Sharland, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle. Mr Sharland, a successful software entrepreneur, had misrepresented the value of his shareholding in his software business. Even where it proved difficult to determine precisely how the non-disclosure had affected the outcome, the original order was overturned. The court was clear: a dishonest spouse cannot benefit from the uncertainty their own concealment creates.
The Challenge for the Financially Weaker Spouse
For the less financially informed party in a wealthy marriage, the position is harder. Most are not forensic accountants. Even commercially sophisticated individuals may lack visibility into the full picture of family wealth, particularly in longer marriages where financial expertise has, almost by default, concentrated in one spouse’s hands. Allegations of hidden assets and disclosure failures are frequently raised early in proceedings, before any evidence exists to support them.
The role of advisers in those circumstances is not simply to review what has been provided. Early, rigorous scrutiny is required: probing, challenging, and identifying what may be absent. Merely accepting the disclosure at face value is not enough, and the courts have made plain that complexity is not an excuse for concealment. As Hughes Fowler Carruthers notes, the duty of disclosure applies however and wherever assets are held. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the judiciary have both confirmed that orders tainted by material non-disclosure can be revisited many years after they were thought to be final.