The seven justices of the Supreme Court are hearing a potential landmark case over wealth disclosure in divorce settlements, as two women claim they were duped in court by their wealthy ex-husbands.

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil from London both claim their ex-husbands misled judges over how much they were worth, and are now asking for divorce proceedings to be reopened.

A lawyer representing both women said the cases raise "serious issues," Associated Press reported.

"Both cases raise serious issues about how the courts should handle situations where information shared with the court and used to agree a divorce settlement is later found to be false or incomplete," said Ros Bever, a specialist divorce lawyer at law firm Irwin Mitchell.

"We believe the position that both women find themselves in is unfair and that is why we are taking their cases to the Supreme Court.

"To both women these cases are about a matter of principle and justice," he added.

Sharland had accepted more than £10m ($15.3m) in cash and properties from her ex-husband Charles. Gohil had accepted £270,000 plus a car from her husband Bhadresh.

Lawyers for Charles Sharland said the provision he made for his wife was "fair and reasonable", reports the BBC. However, both women claim their ex-husbands concealed the true value of their assets.

Catherine Thomas, managing director of Vardags law firm, told IBTimes UK that she felt the case would set a precedent across the board for divorce proceedings.

"This is not just about the sums at stake," she said. "It is about what the consequences should be if one person in a proceeding like this lies about the amount of money they have got. That is something that can apply whether you are talking about millions, hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands."

She explained that it had become commonplace for spouses to lie about their wealth in court because there were rarely any consequences.

"I do see it very frequently. It is not always on the scale of this where someone is out and out lying to the court.

"It happens because the court doesn't have enough teeth in this situation, that they aren't doing enough, so people feel incentivised to try and reduce their wealth and pay their spouse less."

Thomas said the change to the law could reduce court time and lessen the emotional impact proceedings have on families involved.

"It is something we see all the time and it is a huge part of the work that we do, forensically investigating the disclosure that the other party has given, to see if they are telling the truth."