Felicite Terrill Perez De La Sala & Anor v Maria-Christina De La Sala & Ors

In financial remedy proceedings, deliberate non-disclosure of a known prospective gift is material where proper disclosure could have produced a substantially different order. The non-discloser bears the burden of proving otherwise. A spouse’s suspicions or general expectations of family support do not discharge the duty of full and frank disclosure. Available resources provide the context for assessing both parties’ needs. A claim that a gift failed in basis requires an established condition; an outright gift is not conditional merely because later proceedings may require the donee to share part of it. Equitable relief for mistake requires a causative mistake of sufficient gravity, assessed objectively and in the round. A mistaken wish to prevent a former spouse benefiting does not suffice where the donor intended the donee to have the money.

Two appeals arose from an order made by HHJ Hess in the Family Court on 7 August 2024. The judge set aside a consent financial remedy order dated 4 March 2022 after finding that the husband had deliberately failed to disclose that he was likely to receive substantial gifts from the wife’s parents. The wife’s mother, who had made the gifts, separately challenged the dismissal of her claims to recover them.

The husband appealed on materiality. The Intervenor argued that the gifts were conditional on the wife not benefiting from them, or were liable to be set aside for mistake. The central issues were whether the expected gifts were material to the original order and whether the gifts were conditional or vitiated by an operative equitable mistake.

Both appeals were dismissed. Moylan LJ gave the principal judgment on the husband’s appeal. Nugee LJ gave the principal judgment on the Intervenor’s appeal. Andrews LJ agreed with both judgments.

1. The duty of parties in financial remedy proceedings to provide full and frank disclosure of all material facts derives from the structure of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, including section 25. The duty applies to consent orders as well as contested orders: Jenkins v Livesey [1985] AC 424. In cases of deliberate non-disclosure, the non-disclosure is presumed material. The burden lies on the non-discloser to establish that proper disclosure would not have led to a substantially different order. It is insufficient to show merely that it might not have done so: Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 50 and Gohil v Gohil (No 2) [2015] UKSC 61.
2. The wife’s prior belief that the husband might receive family largesse did not discharge his duty. A general assertion or expectation was materially different from the established fact that he was likely to receive at least US$14.77 million. The expected gift would have transformed the resources available and therefore the assessment of both parties’ needs. Needs are not assessed in a vacuum. The husband failed to establish the Sharland exception.
3. The Intervenor’s failure-of-basis claim was pleaded on the footing that the gifts were subject to an implied condition. The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence including the accompanying letter and the Intervenor’s oral evidence, that the gifts were outright gifts. The condition was not so obvious that it went without saying. Broader questions about recovery of gifts for failure of basis did not arise because they had not been pleaded or argued.
4. The equitable mistake claim was governed by Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26. Relief requires a causative mistake of sufficient gravity, normally concerning the legal character or nature of the transaction or a fact or law basic to it. The Intervenor had not established that her belief that the wife could not benefit caused the gifts. In any event, she intended the husband to have the money, and it would not be unconscionable for him to retain the gifts even if family proceedings later required him to share part of them.
5. The judge’s conclusion on unconscionability was an evaluative judgment which disclosed no appealable error. The appellate court therefore dismissed the Intervenor’s appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Both appeals dismissed. [2026] EWCA Civ 282.
• Family Court sitting at the Central Family Court: HHJ Hess set aside the consent financial remedy order dated 4 March 2022 for deliberate material non-disclosure and dismissed the Intervenor’s claims to recover the gifts. Order dated 7 August 2024.