Plea: A twenty-three year fight for justice

What would you do if you believed your divorce settlement was unfair, but everyone else considered the matter closed? That was the situation facing Varsha Gohil.

In her late thirties and with three young children, in 2022 she began divorce proceedings against her husband, a successful lawyer. Expecting a straightforward settlement, she later recalled:

"I thought it would be a straightforward divorce, and he would do right by us. I thought we would sit down and find a way to move on. But I got it wrong. Leaving him started World War Three, he counter petitioned and told me he would destroy me and I wouldn’t get a penny from him"

Instead, she found herself embroiled in what became a legal battle lasting more than two decades.

In the divorce, her husband failed to make full disclosure of his earnings and assets and, as a result, in 2004 Varsha agreed a settlement of just £270,000. Many people would have accepted the outcome and tried to move on. Varsha did not.

Determined to challenge what she believed was an injustice, in 2005 she began studying law. Her growing legal knowledge enabled her largely to represent herself, and in 2007 she returned to court to challenge her husband's financial disclosure.

The case took a dramatic turn in 2010 when her husband was convicted of fraud and money laundering and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. During the ensuing investigations, evidence emerged of around £28 million of assets concealed across several jurisdictions.

Even then, the road to justice was far from straightforward. The legal proceedings became entangled with criminal confiscation actions, and it was not until 2015 that the Supreme Court confirmed that the original settlement should be reopened. Further delays followed, and the final financial proceedings did not conclude until 2025.

The outcome was remarkable. Varsha was awarded an immediate payment of £164,000 in unpaid maintenance and subsequently received a financial award of £6.6 million.

Reflecting on the judgment, Varsha said:

"I want this to be out there for women, because what this case is all about is economic abuse. I think that’s why I’m so happy with this judgment. The judge has recognised it for what it is. It frees me. It's given me justice — and it means the truth is being called out."

Yet the story is not quite over. Despite the judgment, Varsha has reportedly not yet received any of the £6.6 million and remains involved in proceedings to have relevant assets released from the criminal restraint orders.

Cases such as this are unusual, but they turn on a principle that affects every financial settlement: the duty of full and honest disclosure. A settlement is only as sound as the financial picture it was built on. Where assets have been deliberately concealed, the courts retain the power to reopen a settlement and intervene, even many years after it was thought to be final.

Whatever one's view of the litigation, it is hard not to admire the determination of a woman who spent more than twenty years pursuing what she believed to be a fair outcome for herself and her children.

A fuller report of the case can be found in The Times.