Gohil v Gohil & Ors [2025] EWHC 3646 (Fam)

Judgment date: 28 May 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/3646

Williams J. The High Court considered the impact of a £28m confiscation order, disputed beneficial ownership claims, and criminally tainted assets in a restored financial remedy claim following the Supreme Court's decision in Gohil (Appellant) v Gohil (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 61.

Following the setting aside of a 2004 consent order for material non-disclosure, Williams J determined the wife's restored financial remedy application more than 20 years after the parties' separation. The court was required to consider whether assets held by third parties were beneficially owned by the husband, the effect of the confiscation proceedings on the financial remedy exercise, and the distinction between tainted and untainted assets. The court was further required to consider the relationship between confiscation proceedings and financial remedies, together with the application of sharing, conduct, and compensation in unusual circumstances. The wife was awarded £6.83m, representing approximately 69.5% of the matrimonial pool; [248]–[250].

Background

The parties married in 1990 and had three children. They separated in 2002. In April 2004 Baron J approved a consent order providing for a lump sum of £270,000 together with periodical payments for the wife and children. The order recorded the wife's belief that the husband had failed to provide full and frank disclosure, although the husband disputed that allegation; [9], [10].

In 2007 the wife applied to set aside the order on the basis of material non-disclosure. Following extensive litigation, including appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, the wife's appeal succeeded and her financial remedy claims were restored for rehearing. In the meantime, the husband had been convicted of money laundering and forgery, sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, struck off as a solicitor, and made subject to confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA); [2], [11], [20].

Issues

The principal issues for determination were:

1. Which assets were beneficially owned by the husband despite being held by third parties.
2. Which assets constituted matrimonial property.
3. Which assets were tainted by criminal conduct and which remained untainted.
4. What weight should be given to findings made in the confiscation proceedings.
5. How the s 25 MCA 1973 exercise should be conducted in light of the husband's conduct and the criminal origins of certain assets; [3], [4].

Confiscation and financial remedies

The Crown Court had determined that the husband had benefited from criminal conduct in excess of £42m and had made findings regarding his beneficial ownership of numerous assets.

Williams J held that factual findings made in confiscation proceedings could carry substantial weight, but that the statutory assumptions available under POCA did not automatically apply in family proceedings, consistent with Solomons v Solomons [2007] EWHC 1362 (Fam). The family court was therefore required to reach its own conclusions on the evidence applying the ordinary civil standard of proof [140].

Relying on Re MCA [2003] 1 FLR 164, Williams J emphasised that neither the financial remedy jurisdiction nor the confiscation regime automatically took precedence over the other. The court was required to balance competing considerations, including the wife's innocence of the criminal conduct, whether assets were in fact tainted by crime, the public interest in depriving offenders of criminal proceeds, and the need to achieve fairness between the parties; [138]–[139].

In considering the treatment of tainted assets, Williams J also referred to CPS v Richards & Richards [2006] EWCA Civ 849, in which the Court of Appeal observed that assets subject to confiscation should ordinarily not be distributed in financial remedy proceedings, absent exceptional circumstances; [141].

Beneficial ownership

Assets were held in the names of third parties, including family members, companies, and offshore entities. The wife contended that many of those assets were beneficially owned by the husband notwithstanding their legal ownership; [4].

Williams J approached these disputes by applying conventional principles of beneficial ownership while considering the extensive evidence available from both the financial remedy and confiscation proceedings. The court considered whether the assets were genuinely owned and controlled by the husband, regardless of who held legal title.

The judge concluded that a number of assets legally held by third parties were in fact beneficially owned by the husband and formed part of the resources available for consideration within the financial remedy proceedings; [238].

Tainted and untainted assets

Williams J accepted that significant public policy considerations arose where assets represented the proceeds of criminal conduct. Although the family court retained jurisdiction in relation to such assets, the court was required to consider the wider public interest in enforcing confiscation orders and depriving offenders of criminal gains; [138]–[140].

The judge therefore focused on identifying assets which could properly be regarded as untainted and available to satisfy any award; [238]. He considered it preferable to make an award capable of being satisfied from identified and realisable assets rather than requiring recourse to assets affected by criminality and confiscation issues; [249].

Sharing, conduct and compensation

Williams J undertook the s 25 exercise by reference to the principles of sharing, conduct, and compensation; [239]–[251]. The court assessed the matrimonial pool at approximately £9.833m, including the £170,000 already retained by the wife under the original order; [248].

He concluded that the wife's entitlement exceeded both her reasonable needs and her own assessment of those needs; [250]. Although an award approaching 75 to 80% of the matrimonial assets may have been justified by the husband's conduct and the compensatory features of the case, such an award would have required recourse to tainted assets. Williams J therefore limited the award to identified untainted and realisable assets; [249].

Outcome

The wife was awarded assets valued at £6,663,172, comprising the entirety of the identified untainted assets. Together with the £170,000 already retained under the original order, she received assets worth £6,833,172, representing approximately 69.5% of the matrimonial pool; [248]–[249].

The husband's application for a downward variation of periodical payments was dismissed; [251].

Williams J declined to make any recommendation that the confiscation order be reduced to reflect the award made to the wife. He concluded that any application to vary the confiscation order would be a matter for the husband and that the existence of hidden or untraced assets remained a relevant consideration; [257].

Further directions were required regarding implementation of the final order and the treatment of certain offshore assets; [252]–[258].