Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts

On a financial remedy claim restored after an order was set aside for fraudulent non-disclosure, the court has wide flexibility to devise a bespoke procedure. Kingdon v Kingdon does not require a full rehearing in every case, nor does Takhar v Gracefield Developments eliminate that flexibility. The court must nevertheless assess the claim under the statutory factors in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 afresh, taking account of current resources, the procedural consequences of the fraud and any relevant post-order contributions. Where fraud has prevented a full and fair assessment and caused prolonged delay, segregation of assets dealt with by earlier orders may be impermissibly blunt. The claimant is entitled to a full real-time reassessment, but not thereby to a larger award.

This was the wife’s appeal from Sir Jonathan Cohen’s January 2022 determination of financial relief after earlier orders had been set aside for the husband’s fraudulent non-disclosure. The litigation began with a 2010 consent order, set aside in 2015 following the decision in [2015] EWFC 64, followed by Moylan J’s 2016 rehearing in [2016] EWHC 3000(Fam). Holman J later set aside that order in [2019] EWHC 3367 (Fam).

The central issue was whether the judge could adopt the Kingdon approach by treating the CBA interest as already fairly shared and limiting the renewed assessment principally to needs, or whether the repeated fraud required a full real-time reassessment of the wife’s financial claim.

Disposition and governing approach

1. The appeal was allowed. Macur LJ gave the leading judgment and Nicola Davies LJ agreed. Carr LJ also agreed, while cautioning against treating the maxim that fraud unravels all as an automatic rule. The Court of Appeal declined to quantify the wife’s additional claim or determine the fresh-evidence and straight-line-apportionment issues; those matters were for the restored hearing.
2. Takhar v Gracefield Developments [2019] UKSC 13 concerned whether an earlier judgment could be set aside for fraud. It did not prescribe the procedure for determining the financial remedy claim after set aside. Family proceedings also differ from ordinary civil proceedings because liability and quantum are not separated. The flexibility recognised in Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 therefore remained available.
3. Kingdon v Kingdon [2010] EWCA 1409 establishes wide flexibility, not a mandatory formula. The court may isolate the issues affected by non-disclosure and repair the defect without dismantling the whole order. The appropriate procedure must be bespoke and fact-specific, and should not be constrained by additional sub-principles.
4. On a restored application, the court must exercise its discretion under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 afresh, considering all relevant circumstances, including current resources, needs, contributions, prior orders, delay and non-disclosure. The general rule that post-order changes in asset value do not, without more, reopen capital claims, illustrated by Cornick [1994] 2 FLR 530 and Myerson (No. 2) [2009] 2 FLR 147, did not resolve whether the earlier valuation method was just in this case.
5. Fraudulent non-disclosure could constitute conduct under section 25(2)(g), not as a penalty but as the context through which the court assessed the delay and its consequences, including the wife’s unanticipated contribution to family welfare. The judge had failed adequately to explain how the husband’s imminent and substantially increased resources were weighed, and his finding that the case was a single issue case was inconsistent with the wife’s continuing contribution to the children.
6. The husband’s fraud was sufficiently far-reaching to require consideration of the entire financial landscape anew. The wife was entitled to have her claim considered in toto and in real time, but that procedural entitlement did not guarantee a greater award.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division), [2023] EWCA Civ 115: allowed the wife’s appeal and left quantification and disputed valuation issues to the restored hearing.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division, Sir Jonathan Cohen, January 2022: adopted the Kingdon approach, treated the CBA interest as already shared and awarded the wife £1.1m on a needs basis.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division, Holman J, [2019] EWHC 3367 (Fam): set aside Moylan J’s 2016 order after finding further fraudulent non-disclosure.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division, Moylan J, [2016] EWHC 3000(Fam): conducted the first rehearing and awarded the wife an additional lump sum of £6.42m.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division, Moor J, [2015] EWFC 64: set aside the 2010 consent order and directed a rehearing following findings of deliberate material non-disclosure.