The duty around hidden assets divorce disclosure has never been more rigorously tested in the UK courts, and recent judgments leave little room for ambiguity: concealment carries consequences that can stretch across decades, dissolve carefully structured wealth arrangements, and overturn settlements long considered final.
The Web of Complex Wealth and What Courts Look For
Sir Walter Scott’s lines from 1808, ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive’, capture something courts have been grappling with ever since. In ultra-high net worth divorces, wealth is typically spread across multiple jurisdictions through a highly complex network of liquid and illiquid assets, business interests, investment structures and trusts. The globalisation of wealth, and the sophisticated planning that underpins it, has made financial disclosure more demanding, not less.
The case of MK v SK is a recent illustration. Mr Justice Peel considered allegations by the wife that the husband had failed to disclose assets forming part of a trust structure, and the court agreed: it found that the husband had concealed wealth, concluding that he enjoyed access to undisclosed assets in a trust, some other structure, or held by individuals on his behalf. According to the Financial Remedies Journal, the husband’s shareholding in the Group was held via Holdings Ltd, with those shares placed in the first A Trust, a layered structure that placed assets at some remove from his name but not, as the court found, beyond his reach.
That detail matters. It illustrates precisely what the court was doing: looking beyond formal legal title to the reality of a party’s resources and their practical access to wealth. For family offices, trustees and advisers working with very wealthy clients, this is a pointed reminder that informal arrangements, however conventional in the world of wealth planning, will be scrutinised if a marriage breaks down. Strong governance, clear documentation and an awareness of future disclosure requirements are not optional extras.
Prenuptial Agreements and Hidden Assets Divorce Disclosure
Last year, Helliwell v Entwistle brought hidden assets divorce disclosure into sharp focus in a different context: the prenuptial agreement. The parties had a short, three-year marriage, preceded by a prenup in which both stated 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 wealth, including her business assets and a 50% interest in property. The Court of Appeal found the non-disclosure was deliberate and sent the case back to the High Court to assess the husband’s needs.
The implications reach beyond this one marriage. Prenuptial disclosure is often more limited than that required during divorce proceedings, typically set out in a schedule or summary document. Where that summary falls short, and particularly where a party asserts it is complete, the protection the agreement was meant to provide can be undermined entirely. With pre- and postnuptial agreements growing in popularity, the cost of getting disclosure wrong before a marriage begins can be severe on any future divorce.
Settlements Reopened, Orders Overturned
The Gohill case, decided by the Supreme Court in 2015, established that settlements tainted by material non-disclosure can be reopened many years after they were thought to be final. Mrs Gohill persuaded the court to set aside a settlement order made 11 years earlier, after evidence emerged of her former husband’s concealed wealth and money-laundering activity. Mr Gohill had by then been sentenced to 10 years in prison. The final determination of Mrs Gohill’s financial claims did not occur until May 2025, some 20 years after the separation, when the court was able to identify which assets were matrimonial property and untainted by his criminal conduct. She received the entirety of those untainted assets.
In Sharland, decided at the same time, a successful software entrepreneur misrepresented the value of his shareholding in his software business. The difficulty of calculating precisely how that non-disclosure affected the outcome provided no protection: the original order was overturned. The court’s intent 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 spouse, hidden assets in divorce present a practical as well as a legal challenge. Most are not forensic accountants. Even commercially experienced individuals may lack the visibility into complex family wealth structures to evaluate their spouse’s disclosure with any confidence. In longer marriages, financial expertise can become concentrated in one spouse’s hands almost by default.
The role of advisers at this stage is to do more than review what has been provided. Early, rigorous scrutiny (challenging, probing, identifying what is missing) is what the cases demand. Hughes Fowler Carruthers, a member of the Tatler Advisory, describes the task plainly: complexity is not an excuse for concealment, and the duty of disclosure applies however and wherever assets are held.