Can a Financial Order Be Set Aside? 4 Legal Grounds for Challenging a Court Order

July 23, 2025

Once a final order is made by the court in financial remedy proceedings, whether the order was agreed by consent between the parties or imposed on the parties at a final hearing, it is legally binding, and the parties must do what is required of them or face potential enforcement action and a costs penalty. 

However, in certain circumstances, a financial order can be set aside, i.e. overturned, if there are valid legal grounds. 

The main legal grounds to challenge a financial order are: 

1. Fraud or fraudulent non-disclosure

If one party lied, concealed assets, or misrepresented their financial situation, the court may set aside the financial order. 

In the case of Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, the wife succeeded in having a consent order set aside because the husband had lied about a potential business sale, the effect of which was that the value of his wealth had been underplayed and the wife was entitled to a larger award.

In Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, the husband failed to disclose significant assets, including millions in offshore accounts, leading to the ­­­ order being overturned as a result of the material non-disclosure, and the wife receiving a larger award.

2. Non-disclosure

The court will be more inclined to set aside an financial order where a party has deliberately and fraudulently failed to make proper disclosure. 

However, non-disclosure that was negligent or inadvertent may also lead to an order being set aside if the court would have made a substantially different order had it been aware of the true facts.

3. A supervening event occurs, known as a “Barder” event 

Should a new event occur shortly after an financial order is made, which fundamentally undermines the original order, there is the possibility that it could be successfully challenged and set aside.

The leading case applicable in such circumstances is Barder v Barder [1987] in which it is stated that a financial order could be set aside if new events occur shortly after the order was made which invalidate the basis or fundamental assumption on which it was made.  Such events will need to have occurred shortly after the order was made, usually within no more than a few months. 


An application for a set aside based on the occurrence of a “Barder” event must be made promptly if it is to stand a good chance of success and success will only then be dependent on no third-party rights being prejudiced, e.g. prejudice to someone who has acquired, in good faith and for valuable consideration, an interest in property which is the subject matter of the order. 

Barder events – examples:

  • One of the parties dies shortly after the financial order;
  • There is a dramatic and unforeseeable change in asset values. 

Whether or not a court determines there has been a Barder event, and that this provides good reason for a set aside, will be case-dependent.

In Williams v Lindley [2005] one party got engaged to their new partner within a few months of the final order being made.  This was considered a Barder event and the order was set aside.

However, in Dixon v Marchant [2008] the engagement of one of the parties shortly after the order was made was found not to be a Barder event.

4. Mistake

If there was a mistake at the time a financial remedy order was made, this may enable a party to challenge the order and ask the court to set it aside.  The court would need to be satisfied that, were it not for the mistake, a substantially different order would have been made. 

It may be possible for an order to be set aside as a result of a party’s lack of capacity, or due to undue influence or duress.

Applications to set aside are uncommon.  For there to be the possibility of a financial order being set aside, an application would need to be made to court promptly after discovering the grounds for challenging the order.  Evidence would need to be provided as to why the order should be set aside. 

If the challenge is successful, the court may set aside the entire order or only part of it.  This means that the parties may still need to implement some of the terms whilst renegotiating some new terms Alternatively, the court may order new terms.  The successful party may be entitled to recover their legal costs from the other party.

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Family Team.

Lydia Davis
Solicitor, Family
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights

Best Law Firms 2024

Herrington Carmichael has once again been named in the Times Best Law Firms. We were first listed in 2023 and have once again made the Best Law Firms list for 2024.  

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/herrington-carmichael

Best Law Firm 2024