In what has been hailed by the press as a 'landmark ruling', the Supreme Court has ruled that a divorced husband should not have to increase payments to his ex-partner as a result of 'poor financial decisions' following their separation.
Many of you will have heard the recent news reports of the Supreme Court ruling unanimously in favour of a heterosexual couple who did not want to get married, but sought instead to enter into a Civil Partnership.
Should the length of a marriage play a part in deciding what each spouse should receive on divorce? To what extent should other factors be taken into account, like the contribution each person has made to the joint finances?
Prior to the appeals brought in Sharland  UKSC 60 and Gohil  UKSC 61, the law was not clear as to when a lack of disclosure was enough to set aside an agreement in the context of financial remedy proceedings.
Over the course of a marriage, financial affairs tend to become entangled for numerous reasons, including one party receiving an inheritance or the couple making differing levels of contributions, both financially and otherwise.