The former manager of INXS, is currently embroiled in ongoing Court proceedings, relating to her ex-husband’s material non-disclosure, during their financial proceedings arising from their divorce.
Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes married British SAS major James Copinger-Symes back in 1998. They went on to have four children and created their life together in Chelsea. Ms Copinger-Symes’ family are the Perez de la Sala family, who made their £500+millions through their business’ in shipping. Ms Copinger-Symes however, became estranged from her family in more recent times. To which it is understood, Mr Copinger-Symes took her place in the family even after their separation.
The married couple split in 2022, and an agreement was reached as to how the assets of the marriage should be distributed. The Court approved the parties’ agreement, and a sealed Order was handed down, dismissing all future claims. It was agreed that Ms Copinger-Symes shall make a lump sum payment to Mr Copinger-Symes of £1.2m, and she would retain £5.25m. It’s important to note here that the Court (and indeed the parties’ themselves), when asked to make a settlement binding upon the parties, must be entirely aware of the parties’ financial positions, both now and in the imminent future.
It became apparent that shortly after the Order was sealed by the Court, Mr Copinger-Symes received a generous lump sum from the mother of Ms Copinger-Symes to the amount of £27.6m. Ms Copinger-Symes became aware of this and returned the matter back to Court. She claimed, through her lawyers, that the original agreement should be set aside given her ex-husbands failure to disclose the imminent lump sum payment and that she should be entitled to a share of the £27.6m. The Family Court agreed with Ms Copinger-Symes and set aside the original Order, making leeway for Ms Copinger-Symes to pursue a share of the capital.
Of course, this was met with appeals from both Mr Copinger-Symes and his mother-in-law, Felicite Perez De La Sala. Both of which stated that the original financial agreement reached between the parties should remain as in their view, the gifted lump sum was post separation and was made to Mr Copinger-Symes on the basis that the wife, Ms Copinger-Symes, would not benefit from it whatsoever. They argued that if she would, the lump sum payment would not have been paid.
The applications went before the Court of Appeal in which Lady Justice Andrews, alongside Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Nugee dismissed the applications. The Court upheld the decision to set aside the original agreement and stated that Mr Copinger-Symes’ failure to disclosure the future payment, amounts to him being guilty of “material non-disclosure”. They went on to say that both the Court, when approving the original agreement, and indeed Ms Copinger-Symes, had a “distorted picture of the parties’ respective financial circumstances and needs” The Order, and the Court’s approval of it, was premised on that the distorted picture. The information was plainly material”.
What is Material Non-Disclosure?
It is expected that at the time of signing, both parties have all significant and relevant information to make an informed decision as to whether what is agreed, is fair and reasonable to each party and provides them with appropriate settlement for themselves, and any children of the marriage.
A party is found guilty of material non-disclosure if they have failed to disclose significant details which could be detrimental to the overall settlement. In this case, the £27.6m lump sum was not disclosed to Ms Copinger-Symes or to the Court at the time the original agreement was reached. If such facts were given at the relevant time, this would have likely significantly impacted the terms of the agreement.
The consequences of material non-disclosure could result in the Order being set aside and the potential for a more favourable outcome for the other party. In this case, Ms Copinger-Symes receiving a greater share of the assets.
What does this mean moving forward?
As Mr Copinger-Symes’ has been found guilty of material non-disclosure, Ms Copinger-Symes’ may pursue her application for ancillary relief, as though the original order was never made. The parties will be required to re-produce their financial disclosure, in which the £27.6m will be included as an asset available to Mr Copinger-Symes.
Ms Copinger-Symes’ case is to seek a share of £14m. It’s important to note, however, that although the Court have ordered that the original order is set aside, it does not necessarily mean that Ms Copinger-Symes’ claim for the full amount of £14m will be successful. More to follow on this once we have further information.
Key takeaways for those engaged in financial proceedings
- Parties have an ongoing duty to provide full and frank financial disclosure – this is both prior to Court proceedings being issued, and during the Court process.
- The most effective way to ensure parties are entirely aware of the others financial position, is to exchange (either mutually or court ordered) financial disclosure. Form E’s are the best way to do this. You can find a blank version on the Gov Website.
- Even if you think something is not relevant, raise it to your lawyers. If you are representing yourself, make sure to include it within your Form E to avoid future risks of non-disclosure and inevitably, cost consequences.
- No one wants to go through court proceedings twice over, particularly your bank account… Get it right the first time.
Going through the disclosure process and require some assistance?
Get in contact: [email protected].
