This article explores a recent and interesting Court of Appeal decision: Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055. The case highlights how non-disclosure has the potential to invalidate pre-nuptial agreements.
Background
The parties, both in their early forties, met each other in August 2016 and married in July 2019. Their marriage lasted approximately three years and was childless. The wife comes from a wealthy family, with assets under her sole name valued between £60m and £70m and an annual income of around £650,000. The husband, a previous qualified accountant at PwC, had net assets of roughly £850,000, although most of it is tied up to a property shared with his parents.
On the day of their wedding, the couples signed a “drop hands” pre-nuptial agreement, meaning that each party would retain their own assets, jointly owned property would be divided, and no financial claims would be made upon divorce. Both parties disclosed their assets when signing the prenup to strengthen the agreement’s enforceability.
The plot twist of this case is that the wife deliberately concealed a substantial portion of her wealth, which became the central issue in the dispute.
The Initial Award
During the financial remedy proceedings, the judge accepted the wife’s claim that she was unaware of the full extent of her assets and was too afraid to ask her father for details. The judge had found that the wife was doing her best to tell the truth about her worth.
On the other hand, the judge believed that the husband should not simply extricate himself from the prenuptial agreement, because the number provided in the disclosure was lower than the truth. The husband was also fully aware of the wife’s exceptional wealth. Considering this was a short childless marriage, the pre-nuptial agreement should be upheld.
Despite the agreement stating that the husband should receive no settlement, the judge awarded him a £400,000 lump sum based on his assessed needs.
The Appeal
The husband appealed the decision, challenging both the validity of the pre-nuptial agreement and the assessment of his needs.
Upon cross-examination, the Court of Appeal refused to believe that the wife did not know about the full value of her assets. Instead, she knew about the assets but refused to disclose them because she and her father were “concerned about tax”.
Additionally, the number disclosed was not simply “lower than the truth”, but a staggering 73% of assets hidden from the husband. Instead of £18m, the wife actually owned £66m worth of assets at that time.
The leading authority is the Supreme Court’s decision in Granatino v Radmacher [2011] 1 AC 534.
Gracefully set out by Lord Phililps, the first stage in considering (pre-nuptial) agreements is whether any of the standard vitiating factors, such as duress, fraud or misrepresentation, is present. Even if the agreement does not have contractual force, those factors will negate any effect the agreement might otherwise have.
The Court of Appeal commented that the judge did not undertake such analysis. Had the judge properly addressed the Stage 1 analysis, he would have concluded that the deliberate non-disclosure by the wife amounted to fraudulent nondisclosure which vitiates the agreement.
While disclosure, similar to legal advice, is not strictly necessary for a pre-nuptial agreement to be valid, when parties explicitly agree to disclose their assets and one party deliberately concealed their assets, it undermines the integrity of the agreement and deprives the other party of important information.
The Court also found that the judge had inadequately assessed the husband’s needs under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, particularly in light of the couple’s standard of living during the marriage. The judge’s reliance on the flawed agreement had skewed the needs assessment.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the original decision and the pre-nuptial agreement. The case is remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the husband’s needs.
Thoughts
This case underscores the critical importance of transparency and honesty in financial disclosures during matrimonial proceedings. While pre-nuptial agreements are increasingly common, especially among high-net-worth individuals, their enforceability hinges on fairness and informed consent.
The Court of Appeal’s decision reaffirms that deliberate non-disclosure – particularly when parties have agreed to full transparency, can invalidate such agreements. It also highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to rigorously apply established legal principles, such as those set out in Granatino v Radmacher, to ensure just outcomes.
Moreover, the case serves as a cautionary tale for everyone: even in short, childless marriages, the standard of living and the parties’ financial needs must be carefully considered under section 25 MCA.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
