The Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 on 31 July 2025. Harriet Kerchiss reviews the case and the leading judgment of Lady Justice King.

The appeal concerned the final financial order of Mr Justice Francis made in March 2024 in the High Court following the breakdown of Simon Entwistle and Jenny Helliwell’s three-year marriage. Mr and Mrs Entwistle had starkly different financial circumstances following their separation, with Mrs Entwistle stating that she had assets of approximately £60m, while Mr Entwistle said he had assets of approximately £850,000.

Mr Entwistle initially sought a settlement of approximately £10m, but he reduced this to approximately £2.4m by the time of trial. He argued that the parties’ pre-nuptial agreement should be disregarded as:

• he was persuaded by his wife to enter into it as a sop to her father,
• he only received preliminary legal advice in relation to it, and that was before receiving any financial disclosure from his wife,
• his wife had assured him that despite the agreement’s existence, he would be provided for on divorce,
• it was entered into at the eleventh hour, on the day of the wedding,
• his wife had understated her wealth within it (leaving off her business assets and some property), resulting in disclosure of approximately £18m of assets rather than the true figure of approximately £70m, and
• in any event, the terms were unfair in that they did not meet his needs.

The wife’s case was that the agreement should be upheld, as the husband had entered into it freely and willingly having taken legal advice, he was fully aware that she was very wealthy, and he had suffered no detriment as a consequence of her under-disclosure. Mrs Entwistle also averred that her husband could meet his needs from his own resources

At first instance, Mr Justice Francis upheld the parties’ ‘drop hands’ pre-nuptial agreement, which provided for the parties each to retain their own assets and share of joint assets, and make no further claims against one another. Mr Justice Francis did, however, order the wife to make an additional payment of £400,000 to the husband to assist him in meeting his income needs in Dubai for the following two years and to fund the purchase of a car. This would leave Mrs Entwistle with around 98% of the total assets in the case.

Mr Justice Francis stated in his judgment that this was “a paradigm case of how not to conduct litigation on the breakdown of a short childless marriage”. He also observed that “being married to a rich person for three years does not suddenly catapult you into a right to live like that for very [long] after the relationship has ended”.

Mr Entwistle successfully appealed.

Lady Justice King was absolutely clear in the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment that she considered the nuptial agreement was vitiated by the wife’s failure to disclose approximately 73% of her wealth. Lady Justice King was critical of the fact that the wife had “undoubtedly” deliberately concealed information that the husband should have been aware of, apparently because she and her father were concerned about the potential tax consequences.

While financial disclosure is not a legal requirement for a binding nuptial agreement, this case has reinforced the importance of any such disclosure being full and frank. It makes it clear that deliberate and material non-disclosure could justify overturning a nuptial agreement.

The case will now return to the High Court so that the husband’s “needs” can be reconsidered, in particular, his housing provision, on the basis that the nuptial agreement is disregarded. It remains to be seen whether the parties will be able to reach a financial settlement or if they will appear once again at the High Court.

Comment

Harriet says:

“This case reinforces to practitioners and parties alike the importance of giving full and frank disclosure in nuptial agreements, and the significant consequences that can follow if you do not. It is disquieting to read of the impact this protracted litigation has had on the parties, both emotionally and financially, which could have been avoided.”