Case Analysis: Roux v Ma [2024] and Its Impact on Setting Aside a Financial Remedy Order

The decision in Roux v Ma [2024] represents a significant development in English family law, particularly in relation to setting aside financial remedy orders. This case sheds light on the circumstances under which a court can revisit and potentially overturn a financial settlement after divorce, an area of law that has seen substantial growth in recent years.

In this blog, we’ll analyse the key aspects of the Roux v Ma case and explore its broader impact on the legal framework for setting aside financial remedy orders.

Background of the Case

Roux v Ma [2024] concerned a financial remedy order made in divorce proceedings between Mr. Roux and Ms. Ma. After the original financial settlement was agreed upon and the court order was issued, it came to light that one of the parties had deliberately concealed significant financial assets. Mr. Roux applied to have the order set aside, arguing that had the full financial picture been disclosed, the original order would have been substantially different. The case centred on non-disclosure of material assets and how the courts should respond when such deception is discovered after a final order has been made.

Key Legal Issues

At the heart of Roux v Ma were several legal principles:

1. Non-disclosure and Materiality: The primary question was whether the non-disclosure was material to the financial remedy order and whether the order would have been different had there been full and frank disclosure from the outset.

2. Grounds for Setting Aside an Order: The case also examined the threshold for setting aside a financial remedy order in light of previous case law. The principles set out in Sharland v Sharland [2015] and Gohil v Gohil [2015] were central, where the Supreme Court had ruled that fraudulent non-disclosure could justify setting aside a financial order.

3. Timing and Discovery of the Non-disclosure: An essential factor in this case was when and how the concealed information came to light. Courts must consider whether the applicant seeking to set aside the order acted promptly once the non-disclosure was discovered.

The Court’s Decision in Roux v Ma [2024]

In Roux v Ma, the court ruled in favour of Mr. Roux, setting aside the original financial remedy order. The court found that Ms. Ma’s non-disclosure of significant assets was both deliberate and material to the original settlement. The judge held that the concealment of these assets had fundamentally undermined the integrity of the original financial order, and as such, it was appropriate to set it aside.

The court emphasised that full and frank disclosure is a fundamental principle in financial remedy proceedings, and where this principle is breached in a material way, it undermines the fairness of the entire settlement. This decision reaffirmed that the court will not allow parties to benefit from dishonest conduct in financial proceedings.

Impact of Roux v Ma on Setting Aside Financial Orders

 1. Reinforcement of Full Disclosure Requirements

2. Clarification of the “Materiality” Threshold

 3. Encouragement of Prompt Action

 4. Broader Scope for Revisiting Orders

 5. Potential Increase in Applications

Practical Advice

If you are involved in financial remedy proceedings or are considering applying to set aside an order, there are several key takeaways from Roux v Ma:

• Ensure Full Disclosure: Whether you are the party applying for or responding to a financial remedy order, it is crucial to ensure that all assets and financial information are fully disclosed. Any attempts to hide or downplay assets could lead to the order being set aside later.
• Act Quickly if Non-disclosure Is Discovered: If you discover that your former partner has concealed significant assets, it is essential to act swiftly. The court will take into account how promptly you respond to the new information when deciding whether to set aside the order.
• Seek Legal Advice: Setting aside a financial remedy order is a complex legal process, and it’s important to seek expert advice. Here at Browell Smith and Co solicitors, we can help assess whether non-disclosure is material enough to justify reopening the case and guide you through the court process.

Conclusion

The decision in Roux v Ma [2024] marks an important development in the law regarding setting aside financial remedy orders. By reinforcing the principles of full disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings, the case has clarified the circumstances in which a financial order can be overturned due to non-disclosure. For individuals involved in financial disputes after divorce, the ruling underscores the importance of transparency and the potential consequences of concealing assets. As family courts continue to balance fairness with finality, Roux v Ma serves as a clear reminder that dishonest conduct will not be rewarded.