Vitiating factors: fraud

There is a general principle that “fraud unravels all”, as reiterated by Lady Hale in Sharland v Sharland. This means that the court will generally set aside an agreement if it is satisfied that there has been fraudulent, i.e. intentional, misrepresentation or non-disclosure.  

Is there a defence to fraud?

Yes - if the perpetrator of the fraud can demonstrate that the fraud would not have influenced a ‘reasonable person’ to agree, nor would the court have made a significantly different order if it had the relevant information, the court may choose not to set aside the order or agreement.

legal precedents on fraud and prenups

In Sharland, the court held that the principle that “fraud unravels all” was applicable to matrimonial consent orders. In DB v PB [2016] EWHC 3431, the judge held that the same rule should also apply to prenuptial agreements (given that there is no legal difference between prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, this is applicable to nuptial agreements in general). 

If you have entered into a nuptial agreement but believe your spouse intentionally misled you or failed to provide full disclosure of their financial resources, contact Vardags today for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.  

BOOK FREE CONSULTATION