In March 2025, the Court of Appeal heard the case of Helliwell (respondent) v Entwistle (appellant), which is an interesting case surrounding the binding nature of pre-nuptial agreements. The Appeal was brought by Mr Entwistle against the decision of Mr Justice Francis on 15 March 2024 which required his ex-wife to pay him a lump sum of £400,000, whilst she is worth more than £60 million.
The parties were married for three years and did not have children. On their wedding day, the parties signed a “drop hands” pre-nuptial agreement essentially limiting the division of assets upon separation. The first instance Judge, Mr Justice Francis upheld the binding nature of the pre-nuptial agreement from which the husband sought to depart. Mr Justice Francis’ decision was that the husband should only receive a limited lump sum payment based on his needs and nothing more. Interestingly, the husband had previously rejected an offer of a payment of £800,000 from his ex-wife before proceedings had started. In his Judgment, Mr Justice Francis commented that the offer from Ms Helliwell was ‘generous’ and one that the husband ‘should have accepted’.
The Law Commission recommends that pre-nuptial agreements should be signed at least a month in advance of the wedding. However, even though the pre-nuptial agreement was signed on the day of the wedding in this case it had been clearly drafted and recorded that each party was to keep their own separate assets, that they would not make any financial claims against the other and any property occupied as a family home would be divided between them in the shares relevant to their contribution. The husband had received only limited legal advice on the pre-nuptial agreement. Nevertheless, Mr Justice Francis found that the agreement was written in ‘straightforward plain English’ and the husband ‘knew exactly what he was doing’ when he signed it.
Nuptial agreements are now much more commonplace than in the past and it is well understood that agreements will be upheld if certain legal safeguards are met. Some of these safeguards include open and frank disclosure of each others financial assets, lack of duress and general fairness. Mr Entwistle’s appeal included arguments about both the lack of and inaccuracy of the disclosure from Ms Helliwell and the unfairness in the size of his award relative to the wife’s wealth and the standard of living they enjoyed during their marriage.
Interestingly, Mr Entwistle claims that the Court would not have reached the same conclusion if it were a wife in his position and a husband in Ms Helliwell’s.
The decision of the Court of Appeal is currently awaited.