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 ("Husband" or “H”) appeal has been successful. The Court of Appeal has concluded that Ms Helliwell ("Wife" or “W”) failed to properly disclose the true extent of her assets and, as a result, the prenuptial agreement entered into by the parties should not stand.

Background

At a final hearing in the financial proceedings between H and W in February 2024, the court held that a prenuptial agreement entered into by the couple on the day of their wedding should be taken into account when determining the overall settlement.

The agreement stated that if the parties were later to divorce, there would be no financial settlement and the couple would each walk away with what they brought to the marriage. For W, this would mean retaining her wealth in the region of £66m, while H would receive nothing other than the modest assets held in his sole name.

The judge only deviated slightly from the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement to the extent he considered to be required in order to meet the H’s needs, but those needs were assessed in the context of the pre-nuptial agreement and he was awarded a settlement of only £400,000 to meet his needs - reduced to £325,000 by a costs order made in W's favour.

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

The Appeal

H appealed this decision on several grounds. Among these were that he had not been able to seek full legal advice before signing the prenuptial agreement (the lawyer he had consulted initially was unable to advise substantively in the absence of full financial disclosure from W). H also believed that the judge had not properly assessed his needs, as the amount of £400,000 was outside the reasonable band of discretion available to the court under s.25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, W had failed to give full and frank disclosure of her assets in the agreement. She had disclosed assets of approximately £18m, but in fact was worth nearly four times that amount, with assets in the region of £60m-£70m at the time the agreement was signed by her. 

The heart of the dispute was whether W's failure to disclose the majority of her wealth should have the consequence that the prenuptial agreement should not be upheld by the court. Whether this lack of a full and frank financial disclosure would be a suitable basis to overturn the agreement was ambiguous, as this was one of the first contested prenuptial agreement cases to be heard by the Court of Appeal since the Supreme Court decision of Radmacher v Granatino in 2010. This Supreme Court decision established that while prenups are not binding in a contractual sense, courts should give effect to a prenuptial agreement “unless it would not be fair to do so”.

The Court of Appeal heard submissions on behalf of Mr Helliwell and Ms Entwistle, examined the timeline of events surrounding the prenuptial 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 and deliberately” failed to disclose the extent of her £66m fortune. She had, in fact, only revealed 27% of her total assets at the time the pre-nuptial agreement was signed. Not only this, but W had received legal advice before signing the premarital agreement that she should disclose the full extent of her assets, and that a failure to do so could affect the legality of the prenuptial agreement.
H's appeal has been successful, and the Court of Appeal has concluded that the prenuptial agreement should not be upheld and there must therefore be a reconsideration of H's financial needs.

Commentary

The Court of Appeal judgment has given further clarity around disclosure obligations of those considering a prenuptial 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 prenuptial 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. As such, a lack of full disclosure of financial information can represent grounds for overturning a prenuptial agreement in certain cases.

This guidance is helpful to those contemplating a prenup and is a welcome reminder to anyone already party to an agreement to review its content and form 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 at The National Archives or find further information on prenuptial agreements here.
For support in writing, enforcing or appealing a prenuptial agreement, speak to the team at JMW Solicitors today. Call us on 0345 872 6666 or use our online enquiry form to request a call back.