Case No. FD11D02580

. If and when a ground for setting aside has been established, the court may decide to set aside the whole or part of the order there and then or may delay doing so, especially if there are third party claims to the parties’ assets. Ordinarily, once the court has decided to set aside a financial remedy order, the court would give directions for a full hearing to re-determine the original application. However, if the court is satisfied that it has sufficient information to do so, it may proceed to re-determine the original application at the same time as setting aside the financial remedy order.” [my emphasis]70.The change to the FPR 2010 was introduced by The Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2016, No. 901 (L.14). The Explanatory Memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Justice which was laid before Parliament for the purposes of the new statutory instrument makes it clear that para 13.8 was intended to insert into the statutory code “new Rules for applications to set aside a financial remedy order of the court where no error of the court is alleged”. It goes on, at para 7.4 to explain the new rule change in these terms:-“New Rule 9.9A provides that a party may apply to set aside a financial remedy order where no error of the court is alleged. These amendments follow the cases of Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61 in which the Supreme Court addressed questions of whether the High Court had jurisdiction to set aside a financial remedy order due to one party’s non-disclosure.