Charles Sharland was found in an earlier case to have “laid a false trail by his dishonest evidence” and to have hidden the fact that he was considering floating the firm.

In the other divorce settlement case, the appeal court found that Bhadresh Gohil was an “out-and-out rogue involved in financial criminality on an eye-watering scale”. He was convicted of money laundering following their divorce, the Justices heard.

The Court of Appeal had previously ruled in Bhadresh Gohil’s favour, saying that because the courts were not allowed to use evidence from the husband’s criminal trial, held in open court but not released by the Crown Prosecution Service, they could not prove that he was being dishonest in the original proceedings.

Perseverance has paid off for the ex-wives and it seems that common sense has prevailed, as well as the importance of putting the cards on the table in divorce proceedings.

The judgment is likely to open the floodgages to claims by wronged spouses. It will be interesting to see to what extent it will act as a deterrent to those who are tempted to defraud their spouse, as they are less likely to get away with such conduct.