In March 2025, Michael Chapman and Grace Matthews of the JMW family team, instructing Counsel Deborah Bangay KC and Lydia Newman-Saville of 1 Hare Court, appeared in the Court of Appeal in the case of Entwistle v Helliwell.

The Court of Appeal handed down Judgment today and Mr Entwistle’s (“H”) appeal has been successful. The Court of Appeal have concluded that Ms Helliwell (“W”) failed to properly disclose the true extent of her assets and as a result the Pre-Nuptial Agreement entered into by the parties cannot stand.

Background

H appealed the decision to give effect to a pre-nuptial agreement entered into by him and W on the day of their wedding.

For more details on the background to the case read our earlier blog here.

The Appeal

H appealed the court’s decision on six grounds, the most crucial being that W made material non-disclosure and her misrepresentation of her wealth was a vitiating factor. The heart of the dispute was whether W’s failure to disclose the majority  of her wealth should have the consequence that the pre-nuptial agreement should not be upheld by the court.

The Court of Appeal examined the timeline of events surrounding the pre-nuptial agreement and scrutinised the course of negotiations and extent of disclosure leading up to the signing of the agreement.

In considering the evidence, the Court of Appeal concluded that W had “undoubtedly deliberately” failed to disclose the extent of her £66m fortune and had in fact only revealed 27% of her total assets at the time the pre-nuptial agreement was signed.

H’s appeal has been successful, and the Court of Appeal have concluded that the pre-nuptial agreement should not be upheld and there must be a reconsideration of H’s financial needs.

Commentary

The Court of Appeal judgment has given further clarity around disclosure obligations of those considering or a pre-nuptial agreement. The judgment is clear that in circumstances where the parties agree to undergo full and frank disclosure of their assets when entering into a pre-nuptial agreement, and record that they are doing so within the agreement, then the parties must provide that full and frank disclosure.

If deliberate material non-disclosure is then shown (as it was in this case), the court must consider whether the agreement has been vitiated and should be set aside as a result.

This guidance is helpful to those contemplating a pre-nup and is a welcome reminder to those already party to an agreement, to review the content and form of their agreement to ensure it is robust, fully complies with disclosure requirements and will not be open to challenge in the event of separation.

Read the Judgment in full here Jenny Alzena Helliwell v Simon Graham Entwistle - Find Case Law - The National Archives