In one of only a handful of contested prenuptial agreement cases to be considered by the Court of Appeal since the Supreme Court decision of Radmacher v Granatino in 2010, Michael Chapman and Grace Matthews recently appeared in the Court of Appeal in the case of Entwistle v Helliwell.

Despite the common misconception that a prenuptial agreement (prenup) “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”, quite the opposite is true. Where a prenup is fair, has been freely entered into and its implications are understood by the parties, provided additional requirements are met as identified and set out in case law, a court is likely to give a prenup significant weight when determining a financial settlement between a divorcing couple.

However, where those requirements are not met a prenup is far more susceptible to challenge. In one of only a handful of contested prenup cases to be considered by the Court of Appeal since the Supreme Court decision of Radmacher v Granatino in 2010, Michael Chapman and Grace Matthews, of the JMW Family team, instructing Counsel, Deborah Bangay KC and Lydia Newman-Saville of 1 Hare Court Chambers, recently appeared in the Court of Appeal in the case of Entwistle v Helliwell.

Background

At a final hearing in February last year, an order was made in relation to a prenuptial Agreement that the parties entered into on the day of their wedding. The effect of the prenup was such that if the parties divorced, they would each walk away with what they brought to the marriage, notwithstanding the fact that the wife was an incredibly wealthy woman worth in the region of £60m -70m, and the husband was of much more modest means.

The Court held the husband to the terms of the agreement albeit accepting that the prenup failed to meet his needs. An order was made providing for a payment of £400,000 to the husband to meet those needs. This reduced to £325,000 once the costs order made in the wife’s favour had been discharged.

The husband appealed this decision and the order on the following grounds:

• The Judge had not properly considered the husband’s ability to seek independent and full legal advice in relation to the prenup and the fact the wife had pressured him not to do so
• The wife had failed to give full and frank financial disclosure of her assets on the prenup. The wife disclosed assets of approximately £18m when in reality, she was worth nearly four times that, holding assets of £60m-£70m
• The Judge had not properly assessed the husband’s needs and the amount payable to the husband was outside the reasonable band of discretion available to the court under s.25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

The wife resisted the appeal, and the parties submitted their respective legal arguments to the Court of Appeal on 19 March 2025. The hearing was live streamed and the morning and afternoon sessions of the hearing are available to view online.

Commentary

The case is being hotly debated in the legal industry and beyond for several reasons but particularly due to one of the central issues in the case: the wife’s deliberate failure to disclose the true extent of her assets.

As outlined above, one of the limbs in determining whether a prenup should be upheld is whether each party had a full appreciation of its implications. An individual cannot be absolved of their duty to fully and frankly disclose their financial circumstances and the husband’s position is that the wife did just that in not disclosing the extent of her assets. The husband says that a party cannot have a full appreciation of the implications of the agreements in circumstances where proper disclosure has not taken place. In addition, the parties each signed the agreement which contained specific wording to the effect that they confirmed that they had each provided the other full and frank disclosure.

The wife will say the exclusion of assets was justified on the basis that, whilst such assets were legally held in her name, they were under her father’s control. The Judge at the final hearing was of the view that the husband knew the wife was a wealthy woman so therefore this fundamental breach of the terms of the prenuptial agreement was irrelevant.

It is now for the Court of Appeal to determine the appropriate approach to financial disclosure in the circumstances.

The role of discrimination and gender bias within proceedings

As well as legal arguments, the Court’s determination also raises socio-legal arguments surrounding discrimination and the role of gender bias within proceedings. It is important to examine whether in a similar set of circumstances, a woman who had purportedly felt under pressure to sign a prenup, who had given up her high-flying career to work alongside her husband in his family business, and who was then left with a less than modest sum to rebuild her life and career in contrast to her husband’s abundant wealth, would be considered to have her needs suitably met.

This is of course a question that cannot be conclusively answered but it is certainly thought-provoking.

The parties and those following the case must now wait to see how the Court of Appeal has grappled with these issues and whether the husband’s appeal is allowed.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the case, it serves as a timely reminder to those contemplating a prenup - and indeed those who have already entered into one - to ensure it meets the legal tests and can withstand judicial scrutiny in the event of divorce.