Court of Appeal hears appeals over set-aside of 2022 consent financial order

The Court of Appeal heard two linked appeals from a judge's decision to set aside a 2022 consent financial remedy order for deliberate non-disclosure of an expected family gift, and from the refusal to order the gifts repaid.

Background

In Perez De La Sala & Anor v De La Sala & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 282, the Court of Appeal (Moylan LJ, Andrews LJ and Nugee LJ) gave judgment on 17 March 2026 in two appeals heard together on 10 and 11 December 2025. Both came from an order made on 7 August 2024 by HHJ Hess, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in financial remedy proceedings in the Family Court.

The couple married in 1998, have four children and separated in 2017. The wife comes from a wealthy family with a business in Singapore. By 2017 she had become seriously estranged from her parents and siblings, while the family's feelings towards her husband were very positive.

A consent final financial remedy order was made on 4 March 2022. On 12 July 2022 the wife's mother, on behalf of herself and her recently deceased husband, gave the husband US$14,777,180 (AUS$20,000,000). A further US$20,000,000 followed on 12 August 2022. The wife applied on 3 May 2023 to set aside the order, relying on either a Barder event or material non-disclosure.

The two appeals

The husband appealed against the judge's decision to set aside the 2022 order. The judge found deliberate material non-disclosure: the husband had not told the court or the wife that, "by late 2020 or early 2021", he knew he was likely to receive a substantial gift from the wife's parents or mother, and roughly how large the first instalment would be.

The husband accepted he had a duty to disclose knowledge that he was likely to receive a substantial gift likely to affect the financial negotiations. His case was that he acquired that knowledge only after the duty of disclosure had ended. The judge rejected this. He found that the husband, the wife's mother and the wife's three siblings had coordinated a false story linking the gift to a date well after March 2022, and had suppressed information about March 2022.

The wife's mother, as intervenor, appealed against the dismissal of her claim to recover the gifts. She argued they were conditional on the wife not benefiting, or alternatively should be set aside for mistake. The judge found the gifts were intended as outright gifts and that it was not unconscionable for the husband to keep them.

Moylan LJ's judgment deals mainly with the husband's appeal. Nugee LJ's judgment, with which Moylan LJ agreed, deals mainly with the mother's appeal.

Sources

• Felicite Terrill Perez De La Sala & Anor v Maria-Christina De La Sala & Ors, [2026] EWCA Civ 282, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 17 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/282