The curious case of the vanishing fraud

ABSTRACT

This case review critiques Cohen J’s judgment in Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2022] EWHC 711 (Fam), a second rehearing of the wife’s application for financial remedies on divorce. The foundational critique is Cohen J’s minimisation of the husband’s fraudulent non-disclosure of a massive increase in the value of some shares, which had necessitated the rehearing. I argue that the judge failed to consider whether the husband’s non-disclosure had undermined the basis on which the original consent order had been made: the husband had received more than half of the capital based largely on the risk associated with the shares, which had clearly paid off. The judge also failed to consider whether the decision in the first rehearing that the increase in the value of the shares was attributable to the husband’s post-separation endeavour was undermined by his failure to disclose the size of the increase. I critique the judge for making a needs-based award to the wife, arguing that this switches focus to the wife, further obscuring the husband’s deceit. Switching to needs allows the judge to retreat to safe ground where he can avoid difficult questions about the impact of the husband’s fraud on his ability to resist sharing his wealth with the wife.

KEYWORDS:

• Divorce
• non-disclosure
• fraud
• contributions
• needs

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).