By . Dan Bloom for MailOnline . A mother who claims her software millionaire ex-husband cheated her out of a fair share of his fortune will fight a landmark divorce battle in the Supreme Court. Alison Sharland, 46, accepted £10.35million from AppSense founder Charles Sharland two years ago after their marriage of 17 years broke down. She agreed to the payout thinking it was worth half his fortune - yet his stake in the firm was estimated wildly higher at £150million soon afterwards, London's Court of Appeal heard. Battle: Alison Sharland, 46 (left) accepted £10.35m from her ex-husband Charles (right) in the belief it was half his fortune. But his firm AppSense was later valued wildly higher, and his stake was said to be worth £150m . Ms Sharland tried to secure more money from her ex-husband but her bid was rejected, despite a top judge agreeing he had 'lied' and 'misled' the first hearing. Today Ms Sharland was given the go-ahead to challenge that rejection in Britain's highest court. The Supreme Court, which was founded in 2009 and sits opposite the Houses of Parliament, will consider the case next June because it raises wider issues about the British legal system. Her barrister Patrick Chamberlayne QC told the Court of Appeal: 'She was cheated into an agreement. If someone dupes you into a deal, why should you be held to a deal? 'This was a case of equality. It was a long marriage. All the assets had been acquired during the course of the marriage and each party had made their full contribution. 'Part of the wife’s case was that she was busy making post-separation efforts as well. She had the unusual task of lifelong care of the parties’ disabled child.' Popular: AppSense provides remote access software to  4,000 companies and was said to be worth £460m . The couple married in 1993 and separated in 2010, divorcing two years later. They lived in Wilmslow, Cheshire, and had three children as they built a substantial fortune. Mr Sharland ran his company from a business park in Daresbury, near Warrington, while Mrs Sharland ran an autism charity, the court heard. In July 2012 they agreed a settlement which handed Ms Sharland £10.35million in cash and properties. She would also gain 30 per cent of proceeds from her ex-husband's shares in his company when it was floated on the stock market. Mr Sharland would take less in cash and properties at £5.64million, but retain 70 per cent of his shares in the digital firm when it was floated. The row then ignited over how much Mr Sharland's company was worth. Used by high-end firms including the bank JPMorgan Chase and the airline Lufthansa, AppSense was founded in 1999 and has offices in cities including London, Paris, Amsterdam and Oslo. In the original court action, the firm was valued at between £31.5million and £47.25million while Mr Sharland's shares were said to be worth £7million. But it later emerged the company was said to be worth £460million - putting Mr Sharland's stake at £150million, the court heard. Landmark: Ms Sharland's case will be heard at the Supreme Court, opposite the Houses of Parliament . High Court judge Sir Hugh Bennett refused to 'set aside' the agreement and restart the process, even though he found Mr. Sharland had been 'dishonest' about his wealth. He took the decision because he said it would not have made any substantial difference to the settlement. Charles Sharland founded AppSense in 1999 and it has now grown into one of the biggest firms of its kind in the world. It provides secure remote access software for large companies, so their employees can get onto complex internal systems reliably from their laptops in airports or hotels. The technology is used by more than 4,000 firms including the bank JPMorgan Chase, sports channel ESPN and the airlines United Airlines and Lufthansa. An article in the Wall Street Journal in August 2012 - a month after the Sharlands' divorce settlement - suggested it could be worth as much as $1billion (£613million). But the firm's finances are also secretive and difficult to define for sure. A spokesman told the newspaper at the time: 'The company doesn’t comment on rumour or speculation.' She escalated her fight to the Court of Appeal but it agreed, throwing out Ms Sharland’s case by a two to one majority. She was ordered to pay the appeal's £50,000 legal costs, including those of her ex-husband. That was despite the Court of Appeal saying Mr Sharland's behaviour was 'deplorable' and his deceit had been 'deliberate and dishonest'. Lord Justice Moore-Bick added Mr Sharland 'had lied to the court and misled both the wife and the judge.' Mr Sharland did not deny that he had misled the court, but insisted the settlement reached was a fair one. The Supreme Court case will rest on whether the millionaire's dishonesty made the whole of the original divorce settlement 'unjust'. Ms Sharland's lawyer Ros Bever, of solicitors Irwin Mitchell, said: 'We are very pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed that this is a case which requires consideration at the highest level. 'Dishonesty in any legal proceedings should not be tolerated; the family court should not be an exception. 'There are numerous legal arguments to be had before the Supreme Court but we hope that ultimately justice will be done and will be seen to be done.' Mr Sharland's solicitors, James Brown and Beth Wilkins at JMW LLP, said: 'With the Supreme Court due to consider the details of Mr and Mrs Sharland's divorce, we feel that it would be inappropriate to prejudice those deliberations by taking relevant arguments to the media before they are presented to the Court. 'The fact remains that the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's judgement that the agreement struck between Mr and Mrs Sharland was fair and had not caused her any loss.'
Alison Sharland, 46, was married to AppSense founder Charles for 17 years .
She accepted £10.3m in 2012 on the basis it was around half his fortune .
But his share in the firm was estimated at around £150m soon afterwards .
Court of Appeal ruled he had lied - but refused to change ex-wife's payout .
She will now challenge that decision in landmark battle at UK's highest court .
Marriage was equal, she said - and she now cares for their disabled child .
By . Dan Bloom for MailOnline . A mother who claims her software millionaire ex-husband cheated her out of a fair share of his fortune will fight a landmark divorce battle in the Supreme Court. Alison Sharland, 46, accepted £10.35million from AppSense founder Charles Sharland two years ago after their marriage of 17 years broke down. She agreed to the payout thinking it was worth half his fortune - yet his stake in the firm was estimated wildly higher at £150million soon afterwards, London's Court of Appeal heard. Battle: Alison Sharland, 46 (left) accepted £10.35m from her ex-husband Charles (right) in the belief it was half his fortune. But his firm AppSense was later valued wildly higher, and his stake was said to be worth £150m . Ms Sharland tried to secure more money from her ex-husband but her bid was rejected, despite a top judge agreeing he had 'lied' and 'misled' the first hearing. Today Ms Sharland was given the go-ahead to challenge that rejection in Britain's highest court. The Supreme Court, which was founded in 2009 and sits opposite the Houses of Parliament, will consider the case next June because it raises wider issues about the British legal system. Her barrister Patrick Chamberlayne QC told the Court of Appeal: 'She was cheated into an agreement. If someone dupes you into a deal, why should you be held to a deal? 'This was a case of equality. It was a long marriage. All the assets had been acquired during the course of the marriage and each party had made their full contribution. 'Part of the wife’s case was that she was busy making post-separation efforts as well. She had the unusual task of lifelong care of the parties’ disabled child.' Popular: AppSense provides remote access software to 4,000 companies and was said to be worth £460m . The couple married in 1993 and separated in 2010, divorcing two years later. They lived in Wilmslow, Cheshire, and had three children as they built a substantial fortune. Mr Sharland ran his company from a business park in Daresbury, near Warrington, while Mrs Sharland ran an autism charity, the court heard. In July 2012 they agreed a settlement which handed Ms Sharland £10.35million in cash and properties. She would also gain 30 per cent of proceeds from her ex-husband's shares in his company when it was floated on the stock market. Mr Sharland would take less in cash and properties at £5.64million, but retain 70 per cent of his shares in the digital firm when it was floated. The row then ignited over how much Mr Sharland's company was worth. Used by high-end firms including the bank JPMorgan Chase and the airline Lufthansa, AppSense was founded in 1999 and has offices in cities including London, Paris, Amsterdam and Oslo. In the original court action, the firm was valued at between £31.5million and £47.25million while Mr Sharland's shares were said to be worth £7million. But it later emerged the company was said to be worth £460million - putting Mr Sharland's stake at £150million, the court heard. Landmark: Ms Sharland's case will be heard at the Supreme Court, opposite the Houses of Parliament . High Court judge Sir Hugh Bennett refused to 'set aside' the agreement and restart the process, even though he found Mr. Sharland had been 'dishonest' about his wealth. He took the decision because he said it would not have made any substantial difference to the settlement. Charles Sharland founded AppSense in 1999 and it has now grown into one of the biggest firms of its kind in the world. It provides secure remote access software for large companies, so their employees can get onto complex internal systems reliably from their laptops in airports or hotels. The technology is used by more than 4,000 firms including the bank JPMorgan Chase, sports channel ESPN and the airlines United Airlines and Lufthansa. An article in the Wall Street Journal in August 2012 - a month after the Sharlands' divorce settlement - suggested it could be worth as much as $1billion (£613million). But the firm's finances are also secretive and difficult to define for sure. A spokesman told the newspaper at the time: 'The company doesn’t comment on rumour or speculation.' She escalated her fight to the Court of Appeal but it agreed, throwing out Ms Sharland’s case by a two to one majority. She was ordered to pay the appeal's £50,000 legal costs, including those of her ex-husband. That was despite the Court of Appeal saying Mr Sharland's behaviour was 'deplorable' and his deceit had been 'deliberate and dishonest'. Lord Justice Moore-Bick added Mr Sharland 'had lied to the court and misled both the wife and the judge.' Mr Sharland did not deny that he had misled the court, but insisted the settlement reached was a fair one. The Supreme Court case will rest on whether the millionaire's dishonesty made the whole of the original divorce settlement 'unjust'. Ms Sharland's lawyer Ros Bever, of solicitors Irwin Mitchell, said: 'We are very pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed that this is a case which requires consideration at the highest level. 'Dishonesty in any legal proceedings should not be tolerated; the family court should not be an exception. 'There are numerous legal arguments to be had before the Supreme Court but we hope that ultimately justice will be done and will be seen to be done.' Mr Sharland's solicitors, James Brown and Beth Wilkins at JMW LLP, said: 'With the Supreme Court due to consider the details of Mr and Mrs Sharland's divorce, we feel that it would be inappropriate to prejudice those deliberations by taking relevant arguments to the media before they are presented to the Court. 'The fact remains that the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's judgement that the agreement struck between Mr and Mrs Sharland was fair and had not caused her any loss.'
will fight a landmark divorce battle in the Supreme Court. Alison Sharland, 46, accepted £10.35million from AppSense founder Charles years broke down. She agreed to the payout stake in the firm was estimated wildly higher at £150million soon afterwards, London's Court of (right) in the belief it was half his fortune. top judge agreeing he had 'lied' and 'misled' the go-ahead to challenge that rejection in Britain's highest court. The Supreme Court, which was of the parties’ disabled child.' Popular: her fight to the Court of Appeal but it agreed,