A recent judgment has confirmed that a fraudulent husband cannot evade the consequences of his own dishonesty by pointing to the wife’s alleged delay in bringing her claim.
In Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam), with Peter Mitchell KC acting for the respondent, instructed by Payne Hicks Beach, the court rejected the husband’s attempt to argue that the wife had acted too slowly in applying to set aside the original financial order, and therefore should be barred from relief. The judgment provides welcome clarity on the proper approach to delay in cases involving fraud and offers reassurance that the court will not allow dishonest litigants to weaponise procedural timelines to their advantage.
The court reaffirmed that the law continues to require promptitude from any applicant seeking to set aside an order on the basis of fraudulent non-disclosure. However, crucially, the judge emphasised that the assessment is not mechanical. The court must consider all the circumstances of the case, weighing any delay against all other factors.
The decision also reiterates that the appellate court will be slow to interfere with a judge’s evaluative judgment on these issues. Provided that the judge has exercised their discretion within reasonable bounds, the appellate court will not intervene.
This judgment serves as an important reminder: Fraud remains a strike at the heart of the court’s process, and those who commit it cannot expect to hide behind claims of procedural delay once their conduct is exposed.
