The duty of financial disclosure in an ultra-high net worth divorce has never been more rigorously tested than it is now, with a sequence of court decisions making clear that concealment (however sophisticated the structures used to achieve it) carries consequences that can pursue a spouse for decades.
Sir Walter Scott wrote in 1808 of the tangled web woven by those who practise to deceive. In the context of modern wealth planning, that web has grown considerably more elaborate: assets spread across jurisdictions, held through trusts, corporate structures and informal arrangements, sometimes involving family offices and third-party nominees. The courts, as recent cases demonstrate, are well practised at unpicking it.
MK v SK and the Reality of Financial Control
In MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28, Mr Justice Peel was asked to consider allegations by the wife that the husband had concealed wealth behind complex offshore structures. According to St Mary’s Chambers, the husband’s accessible resources were held principally in a trust containing his shares in a global technology group. The court agreed with the wife’s position, finding that the husband had concealed wealth and enjoyed access to undisclosed assets, whether through a trust, some other structure, or via individuals holding assets on his behalf.
The principle at work here is one the family courts have returned to repeatedly: what matters is not formal legal title but the practical reality of a party’s access to wealth. For the ultra-wealthy, their advisers, and the trustees and family offices who administer complex structures, the case is a reminder that informal arrangements carry real legal risk. Strong governance, clear documentation and early consideration of future disclosure requirements are not optional extras, they are the foundations of any defensible position.
The Financial Remedies Journal notes that the High Court in MK v SK also grappled with the impact of a £28m confiscation order, disputed beneficial ownership claims, and the question of criminally tainted assets, in proceedings that followed the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61. That context alone illustrates how far-reaching the consequences of non-disclosure can become once the court starts to look.
Prenuptial Agreements and the Ultra-High Net Worth Divorce
Last year, Helliwell v Entwistle demonstrated that the duty of disclosure does not begin at the point of separation. The parties had entered into a prenuptial agreement before a short, three-year marriage, each asserting that 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 her business assets and a 50% interest in property. The Court of Appeal found the non-disclosure was deliberate and returned the case to the High Court to assess the husband’s needs.
The lesson travels well beyond the specific facts. Prenuptial disclosure is typically far less granular than that required during financial remedy proceedings, often presented as a schedule or summary document rather than a full accounting. Where that summary is incomplete and is accompanied by an assertion of completeness, the protection the agreement offers may dissolve precisely when it is most needed. With pre and postnuptial agreements becoming more common, this is unlikely to be the last case of its kind.
The Gohil litigation provides the starkest illustration of what non-disclosure can set in motion. Mr Gohill was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Supreme Court in 2015 set aside the original settlement order made 11 years earlier, following evidence of concealed wealth and money-laundering activity. The final determination of Mrs Gohill’s financial claims did not occur until May 2025, some 20 years after the separation, when the court assessed which assets were matrimonial property and untainted by her former husband’s criminal conduct. She received the entirety of the identified untainted assets. In the parallel case of Sharland, the court overturned an original order after Mr Sharland, a software entrepreneur, was found to have misrepresented the value of his shareholding. The court was explicit: a dishonest spouse cannot benefit from the uncertainty that dishonesty creates.
For the financially weaker party in an ultra-high net worth divorce, the challenge is compounded by a practical asymmetry. Wealth management expertise often accumulates in one spouse’s hands over a long marriage. Allegations of non-disclosure are regularly raised at the outset, before evidence exists to test them, which places enormous weight on early, thorough scrutiny by advisers. Hughes Fowler Carruthers puts the point plainly: reviewing disclosure is not enough. What is needed is rigorous challenge, early in the process, to identify not just what has been disclosed but what is absent.
Complexity, the courts have made clear across these cases, is not a defence. Where concealment is found, orders can be revisited years after they were thought final, and the financial and reputational costs of being caught remain as severe as ever.