Discovering hidden assets: disclosure of what the other side owns

General information for people handling their own family law case in England & Wales — not legal advice. Rules and forms change; check current versions on GOV.UK and consider getting advice for your specific situation.

In a financial remedy case, both parties must give full and frank disclosure of everything they own, earn, and owe. This guide explains the tools you can use to test the other side's disclosure and find out what they actually own — and what happens when they hold back.

The starting point: Form E and the duty of full disclosure

Every financial remedy case starts with each party (and, where they are involved, those with parental responsibility) completing and exchanging a Form E — the financial statement filed under the Family Procedure Rules (Part 21 and Practice Direction 21A). It covers property, bank accounts, savings, investments, pensions, debts, income, needs, and recent changes, and it is signed with a statement of truth.

The duty goes further than answering the boxes: you must voluntarily reveal everything material, whether or not the form asks for it directly. "They didn't ask" is not a defence. For a full walkthrough of what goes in the form, see the companion guide Form E and financial disclosure done right.

Questionnaires (Form F)

After the first appointment, the court usually directs that the parties identify in Form F any further questions each wants the other to answer in writing, and any further documents they want produced.

Use the questionnaire to chase gaps: undocumented figures, accounts missing from the form, valuations you don't accept, "unknown" entries.
You can ask for bank statements, pension CETVs, business accounts, credit card statements, and proof of income — but the questions must be relevant and reasonable, not a fishing expedition.
The other side must answer, on oath, within the time the court sets. If they refuse or answer evasively, you go back to court and can ask for an order that they comply, and for costs.
Keep every question and answer — exchanges here become powerful evidence if the case reaches a final hearing.

Third-party disclosure orders (banks, pensions, employers, businesses)

The other side may hide assets by keeping them with third parties. Where you have concrete grounds to suspect something exists, the court can order a third party to disclose documents — but you generally need the court's permission before making a direct request, and you need to show a proper basis for it, not bare suspicion.

Banks and building societies: orders for statements on specific accounts or even all accounts in a person's name.
Pensions: orders against pension providers for CETVs or scheme membership details where the other side omits or undervalues a pension.
Employers: orders for payslips, P60s, and tax records where income is understated or self-employment accounts are missing.
Banks & building societies, credit card issuers: statements revealing undisclosed spending or transfers.
Business and company records: where one party controls a company, the court can order production of accounts, ledgers, and sometimes tax returns from the company or its accountant.
The court can also order a party or a third party to attend court and answer questions on oath (under FPR 24.6) — a rarely used but powerful tool when written disclosure is not enough.

A third-party order typically requires a sensible evidentiary basis and notice to the party affected. If you are a litigant in person, ask the court at the appropriate directions hearing rather than trying to approach the bank directly.

Adverse inferences when disclosure is deficient

Where disclosure is incomplete, evasive, or late, the court can draw adverse inferences — it assumes the worst about what is being hidden. This is one of the most effective pressures in family finance:

An asset the other side failed to disclose can be treated as more valuable than they claim, or valued at whichever figure would correct the under-disclosure.
Explanations that are implausible — "I have no idea what that account was for" — tend to count against the person giving them.
Credibility collapses: once a court concludes a party has been less than candid, every other disputed figure is viewed through that lens.
Non-disclosure can justify awarding costs and, in extreme cases, a less favourable overall distribution.

The message the courts repeat: if you behave as though you have something to hide, the court will assume you do — and value it against you.

Setting aside for non-disclosure

A consent order or judgment reached on the basis of incomplete or false disclosure is vulnerable to being set aside, sometimes many years later:

***Sharland v Sharland* [2015] UKSC 60 and *Gohil v Gohil* [2015] UKSC 61** confirm that a settlement procured where one party has been less than candid can be set aside — the applicant need not prove they would have got more, only that the non-disclosure was material and tainted the deal.
To set aside, you apply to the court (under FPR 9.9A) alleging fraud, misrepresentation, or material non-disclosure, with real evidence rather than general suspicion.
The same duty means you must also update your own disclosure promptly if circumstances change — hiding your own assets can unravel a settlement that favours you.
Setting aside returns the parties to financial proceedings as if the order had not been made — the stakes are high for both sides.

Practical evidence gathering

Much of the work is done before you ever go to court:

1. Gather your own paper trail first. Past joint bank statements, tax returns (P60s, self-assessment), mortgage offers, business accounts and pension statements held from the marriage often reveal accounts and assets your ex no longer mentions. 2. Look for patterns in what's missing. Compare the Form E against old joint documentation — a savings account or employer pension that appeared in a mortgage application but not in the Form E is a lead worth chasing. 3. Track spending and lifestyle. Extravagant or unexplained outgoings can point to undeclared income or cash. 4. Lodge your doubts early. Put each concern in writing (email or letter) and in the Form F questionnaire so the other side is on notice — silence now weakens you later. 5. Keep a ledger of questions, requests, and answers with dates. A clear record of how you pressed for information carries weight with the court. 6. Ask the court to direct documents at the earliest directions hearing rather than hoping for voluntary cooperation. 7. Revisit disclosure before every hearing. Circumstances change, and updated disclosure is an ongoing duty — the more recent the statement, the harder to hide a sale, inheritance, windfall, or new account.

A caution about suspicion

The court needs a reasonable evidential basis for knowingly making adverse findings or ordered disclosure; it does not punish bare fishing expeditions. Your requests should be framed as "the documents show account X existed, yet it is missing" rather than "I just don't trust them." Evidence and specificity — not generalised distrust — is what moves a court.

Last reviewed: August 2026. Check the current Family Procedure Rules, Form E/Form F, and GOV.UK guidance before relying on this.