Key Takeaways
- Every party to financial remedy proceedings in England and Wales is under a duty to give full and frank disclosure of their finances, backed by a statement of truth.
- Official figures show 12,646 financial remedy applications in January to March 2026, up 11% on a year earlier, with 27% of them contested.
- Where concealment is suspected, courts can order disclosure from third parties, freeze assets, set aside transactions and draw adverse inferences about undisclosed wealth.
- Since the Supreme Court’s 2015 decisions in Sharland and Gohil, settlements obtained through fraudulent non-disclosure can be set aside.
A financial settlement on divorce is only as reliable as the information it is built on. The system in England and Wales depends on each partner telling the truth about what they own, earn and owe. When one of them does not, the other is effectively negotiating blind, often without realising it.
Concealment is rarely dramatic. It’s more often a bonus deferred until after the settlement, a business that suddenly looks less profitable, or money moved to a relative shortly before the separation. However, its effects can be substantial and long-lasting, particularly for the partner who was less involved in the household finances.
This article examines how the disclosure duty works, what the available data does and does not show, the methods commonly used to hide assets and the powers the courts use in response. Osbourne Pinner offers a free 30-minute consultation with its financial settlement solicitors for anyone concerned about concealment in their own case.
The disclosure duty at the heart of the system
Both parties to financial proceedings on divorce owe the court and each other a duty of full and frank disclosure. In contested cases, that disclosure is made on Form E, a detailed financial statement covering property:
- Bank accounts
- Investments
- Pensions
- Business interests
- Income
- Liabilities
That’s all supported by documents and signed with a statement of truth. Even agreed settlements require a summary of each party’s finances before a judge will approve a consent order.
The duty doesn’t end once the form is filed. A material change must be disclosed while proceedings continue. That could be a new job, an inheritance or the sale of an asset. Our guide to disclosure in divorce sets out the obligation in a little more detail.
What the data shows, and what it does not
There’s no official measure of how often assets are hidden in divorce. By definition, concealment that succeeds isn’t recorded, and much of what’s uncovered is resolved in negotiation rather than in a published judgment. Any statistic claiming to show what proportion of partners hide money should be treated with caution.
What the official data does show is the scale of financial disputes. The Ministry of Justice’s Family Court Statistics Quarterly recorded 12,646 financial remedy applications in January to March 2026, for instance. That’s an increase of 11% on the same quarter of 2025. Of those applications, 27% were contested. Over the same three months, 28,632 divorce applications were made.
The two figures aren’t directly comparable, because financial applications can follow divorces started in earlier quarters. Taken together, though, they suggest that a significant share of divorces conclude without any financial order at all. That gap is explored in our analysis of divorce statistics. Where no order is made, disclosure is never formally tested, and concealment is less likely to come to light.
How assets are hidden
The methods seen in practice range from the crude to the highly sophisticated. The most common include:
- Bank accounts, savings or investments that are simply left off the disclosure.
- Money transferred to family members, friends or new partners, sometimes described as repayment of a loan that never existed.
- Bonuses, commissions or share awards deferred until after the settlement.
- Business profits suppressed through inflated expenses, delayed invoices or payments routed elsewhere.
- Assets held through trusts, companies or offshore structures that obscure who really controls them.
- Cryptocurrency held in private wallets rather than on regulated exchanges.
A common thread is timing. Transfers and changes in a business’s apparent performance that cluster around the separation tend to attract scrutiny, because they’re exactly what a court would expect to see if someone were trying to reduce their apparent wealth.
How the courts respond
The family courts have a wide range of tools for testing disclosure and dealing with concealment. Parties can raise detailed questions about each other’s finances and seek further documents. The court can order banks and other third parties to produce records, and forensic accountants are often instructed to trace funds or value a business independently.
Where assets are at risk of being moved, the court can grant a freezing injunction to preserve them. Under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, it can also set aside transactions made with the intention of defeating a financial claim. Where a disposal took place within three years before the application and has that effect, the intention is presumed unless shown otherwise. The firm’s guide to protecting assets during divorce covers these protective steps.
The most significant weapon is often the adverse inference. If a party has failed to disclose properly, the court doesn’t have to accept their account of their finances. It can infer that undisclosed resources exist and divide the assets on that basis. The Court of Appeal set out the approach in Moher v Moher in 2019, and the High Court applied it this year in MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28, where the wife alleged that her husband’s wealth sat behind complex offshore trust structures. Beyond this, non-disclosure can lead to costs orders and, in serious cases, proceedings for contempt of court.
When the lie surfaces after the settlement
A settlement isn’t necessarily final if it was built on concealment. In October 2015, the Supreme Court decided two cases together. In Sharland v Sharland, the husband had given misleading evidence about plans to float his company. In Gohil v Gohil, the husband had concealed assets. In both cases, the court held that a consent order obtained through fraudulent non-disclosure should be set aside unless the non-disclosure would have made no difference to the outcome.
Those decisions shifted the burden onto the party who concealed. In practice, a partner who later discovers hidden wealth still needs to act promptly and gather evidence, and the court will look carefully at whether the information was material. The principle is nonetheless clear: dishonesty shouldn’t be rewarded with a binding settlement.
The limits of self-help
A partner who suspects concealment might be tempted to search the other’s emails, copy documents or access their accounts. But that can backfire. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Imerman v Tchenguiz in 2010 confirmed that taking or copying another person’s confidential documents without permission can be unlawful, and evidence obtained that way can lead to injunctions and costs penalties.
The lawful route is almost always more effective. Documents already legitimately held, a careful record of known assets and a formal request for specific disclosure give the court a sound basis to act.
The warning signs
Concealment often reveals itself through inconsistency. For example:
- A lifestyle that doesn’t match declared income
- Unexplained transfers
- A business that performed well until the separation and then declined
- Reluctance to provide statements
- New accounts and companies appearing around the time of the breakdown
These are all features that commonly prompt closer investigation. None proves dishonesty on its own, but together they can justify asking the court to look harder.
Reform might also bring more structure. The government’s recent consultation, A fairer end to relationships, proposed placing the principles courts use to divide finances on divorce into statute. The duty of full and frank disclosure would remain central to any new framework, because every other principle depends on it. If you’re interested in how those principles currently operate, check out our complete guide to divorce financial settlements.
Speaking to a solicitor about suspected hidden assets
Suspected concealment is time-sensitive. Money that can be moved can be moved quickly, and evidence gathered unlawfully can weaken an otherwise strong case. Early advice allows protective steps to be taken before assets disappear.
Osbourne Pinner’s financial settlement solicitors advise clients where concealment is suspected, from requests for specific disclosure and third-party orders to applications to freeze assets or set aside a settlement. The firm’s analysis of official divorce and financial remedy data is published on its divorce statistics page.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should speak to a qualified solicitor for advice on their own circumstances.
Osbourne Pinner offers a free 30-minute consultation, Monday to Friday, by video call or at its offices in Piccadilly Circus, Canary Wharf, Wimbledon, Harrow or Manchester. To arrange a consultation, call 0203 983 5080, email [email protected] or complete the form below. The firm does not offer Legal Aid.
